@@justian1772 You can read about the Continuing Anglicans by looking up the Affirmation of St. Louis. They left the Episcopal church in the 70s when they decided to start "ordaining" women. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope.
I’d love to chat with you about your journey on my channel, if you’re up for it. I don’t see contact info in your about section, but my email is in mine, if you’re up for it. In any case, thanks for sharing your story in these videos!
yep, why I left moment, understandable. Lots of misunderstanding on the magisterium and confusion on the distinctions of the dogma and the doctrine, lack of nuances. yep I left, too much to learn, yep I hope you find what your heart desires out there. maybe you go public to mislead the average and confuse Catholics or maybe a protestant, or other but not for any informed Catholics to leave the Holy Eucharist, the Confession, the sacraments is a biggest mistake one could ever made in life . Or maybe you wanted to make money on TH-cam, who knows. laughable, Deacon Drew Harrah (MA in Classical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, MA in History, California State University, Fullerton) all these showing authority (of University degrees) means nothing, as St. Paul Said "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,..." so stop showing authority (of University degrees). good luck.
Great video. God willing the ACNA/Gafcon churches and the continuing churches will move closer to one another in the future. Feels like things are (however slowly) heading that way.
That's my understanding as well. Denzinger only provides that Exsurge Domine is a notable document in the history of the Church. It does not state that it is an infallible teaching.
Fascinating. I’m currently attending a confessional Lutheran seminary and have dealt with many of the same thoughts about Rome. I’ve always appreciated what the Anglicans have brought to the table, and I’d love to see some talking between our two communities! Blessings on your ministry, brother.
currently the LCMS is in communion talks with the G3 Anglican churches, hopefully this will lead to communion talks with the ACNA too. I would love, from the Anglican standpoint, to see more work and coming together with our Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ!
What a refreshing pair of videos these were! Thank you for your charitable, clear, and concise contribution to the online discussion on these topics. Not sure what other plans you have for this space, but I am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Great video. While my family and I are visiting the RCC, I appreciate your genuine journey for the truth. I don't get upset at people for having different opinions. Christianity is a tough thing to sort out in the times we live in. Hope the best for you and your family.
I was also Roman Catholic. I later tried the Eastern Orthodox Church as I mentioned to you earlier. I'm now confused, but I pray at night and still want to read the Bible. Maybe I should focus on the New Testament, but what interpretation I remain unsure.
I’ve been attending a Catholic Church for 2 years and I got baptized there last Easter and I’ve been heavily considering the Anglican Catholic Church but looking at Anglicanism at large it doesn’t look like women ordination can ever be reversed and that’s one of the main reasons why I’m skeptical of Anglicanism
The Catholic Church has many different rites. If you don't like Latin rite novis ordo, you can try to find tridentine masses near you. If not, there's even eastern catholic rites with liturgies similar to the orthodox church.
The hymn, "Faith of Our Fathers", was, ironically, written by a Roman Catholic priest named Frederick Faber in 1849. It was written in commemoration of the lives of the English Catholic martyrs who had been persecuted by the English King Henry VIII. Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church of England in rebellion against the Roman Catholic prohibition against divorce.
I'm aware of this. The irony is not lost on me. It's still a good hymn, and it's in our hymnal. It's kind of like how Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is sung in Catholic parishes.
It would be great to hear a video now on why you chose Anglicanism. I’m a big fan of English reformation history and it would be great to hear your take on Anglicanism in general.
Matthew 25:31-46. Which church most embodies Christ's care for the poor? I was Orthodox for 10 years, and that is one of the things that perplexed me the most. So much focus on correct beliefs and so little focus on providing (compared to the Catholic Church) practical care for the poor.
Ordinariate Catholic here so.i guess you're in my "sister church" . Well I'm sorry to see you go, but I get it. I really do. St Peter's Barque is being tempest toss't in the current day. May God bless your family, your ministry, and soon your priesthood. Looking forward to a vid on why you specifically chose to join a church in the Anglican Way.
I have a sense that every Christian (and maybe every religious believer) belongs to a denomination of one, so that your faith journey, like mine, will never really end until you see God, not darkly, but face to face. Bon voyage! ✌️
Wow! The statements that you quoted, and my having drawn the same conclusions that you drew, are a few of the very things that stopped me from becoming Catholic not too long ago. I saw both that those outside of Catholicism cannot be saved according to ex cathedra statements of certain popes and the issues that this creates given modern ex cathedra statements of popes. I also have serious misgivings about removing people from the church for not holding to lesser dogmas, such as the Marian dogmas. I really can't be part of the one, true, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church if I don't believe that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? Would Jesus desire that members of his body be separated from fellowship, let alone anathematized, for not believing such a thing? I somehow, deeply, doubt that such is the case. As a comment that I posted last year to someone says: "The following is part of the ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence about the middle of the 15th century. "It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church." --Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Section 11, Paragraph 14. Again, ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Boniface VIII in the papal encyclical, Unam Sanctam. "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4" With all the statements brought up that are of concern, I don't see how anyone can avoid the conclusions that you draw.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church" At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men" The Catechism also states that the Catholic Church "is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways" In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life" Feeneyism is a Christian doctrine, associated with Leonard Feeney, which advocates an interpretation of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation") which is that only Catholics can go to heaven and that only those baptised with water can go to heaven. Feeneyism opposes the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood as well as the view that non-Catholics can go to heaven. Feeneyism is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church; some Catholics refer to Feeneyism as the Boston heresy. Quick search and you will find the answers, i really dont understand why some people dont have a problem when bible is not striclty interpreted but when tradition is not strictly interpreted than it is wrong really weard double standard.
@@sebastiankaczmarek635 You are just cherry picking phrases out of it to deal with, rather than the whole. And, I know that it has been decided that what these popes declared ex cathedra is wrong, that's the problem we are pointing to. "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4 No getting around it. If you say that the pope was wrong here, when speaking ex cathedra, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is false. If you say that it was correct, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is, likewise, false. In the former case it's about past ex cathedra prounouncements, and in the latter it's about modern ones. Either way, the claim is false. Did you watch the video? The point being brought up is an internal contradiction in Roman Catholic claims. Pointing to the bits that make the claims contradictory does nothing to overturn their contradictory nature.
This was immensely respectful! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I am a Lutheran currently investigating Rome. I do find that there are good answers to the points you raise though, however, I don't want to dismiss your points either - these are serious issues and they need to be worked through diligently if one is to be serious about the Catholic claims. God bless you
After discovering the ancient church while my husband was in Baptist seminary we looked into orthodoxy and Catholicism for 3 long years. We finally found that there are faithful and orthodox Anglicans and we are at peace and at home.
Let me refute some of the issues that were brought up by Deacon Drew Harrah in his TH-cam video: 1. Disorientation During Francis’s Pontificate: Early in Francis’s pontificate, in July 2013, the infamous “Who am I to judge?” statement was made, causing confusion and disorientation. This statement became a recurring theme during my Catholic experience, making it challenging to interpret the Holy Father charitably over time. Misuse of the "Who am I to judge?" Statement: Refutation: The statement "Who am I to judge?" was taken out of context by the media. Pope Francis was addressing a specific question about a person’s sexual orientation and emphasizing the need for pastoral care and love, not a change in Church teaching. Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting the Pope’s statement to suggest a change in doctrine. 2. The Pachamama Affair: In October 2019, during the Amazon Synod, a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens involved statues of indigenous pregnant women, which some perceived as idolatry. This event was deeply offensive and scandalous to me and many faithful Catholics, including Cardinal Müller, the former prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Misunderstanding of the Pachamama Event: Refutation: The Pachamama statues were not idols but symbols of life and fertility in indigenous cultures. The Pope did not condone idolatry but participated in an interreligious dialogue event. Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion - Using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction without context. 3. Issues with the Magisterium: The term magisterium refers to the teaching office of the Church. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. I found the issue of the magisterium subtle and sometimes unclear. Misinterpretation of Papal Infallibility: Refutation: Papal infallibility applies only in specific instances when the Pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. This has occurred rarely. Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Assuming frequent infallible statements without evidence. 4. The Case of Exsurge Domine: One instance often cited is the papal bull Exsurge Domine issued by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther, which condemned certain propositions. Some believe this fulfills the conditions for papal infallibility. Misunderstanding of Historical Context: Refutation: The condemnation of certain propositions during the Reformation was specific to that historical context and not a blanket endorsement of burning heretics. Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting historical practices as incompatible with contemporary teachings. 5. Changes in the Death Penalty Teaching: In 2017, Pope Francis called for a change to the catechism on the death penalty, declaring it inadmissible. This seemed to contradict past teachings. Understanding Doctrinal Development: Refutation: The Church’s teaching on the death penalty has developed, recognizing the dignity of human life and changing social circumstances. Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting doctrinal development as contradiction. 6. Issues with the Council of Florence: Pope Eugene IV’s papal bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence made stark pronouncements on non-Catholics’ salvation, which seems at odds with Vatican II’s teachings. Contextual Understanding: Refutation: Vatican II emphasized the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, consistent with the Church’s understanding of God’s mercy and grace. Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting pre-Vatican II and Vatican II teachings as mutually exclusive. 7. Ecclesiology and Vatican II: The Second Vatican Council’s documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio use a framework acknowledging the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church but also includes other Christian communities. Nuanced Understanding of Ecclesiology: Refutation: Vatican II’s teachings reflect a deeper understanding of the Church’s unity and inclusivity, consistent with early Church Fathers’ views on schism and unity. Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Concluding that Vatican II’s teachings represent a break from tradition without considering the continuity. 8. Personal Conclusion: I concluded that the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium had changed its teaching, and it was not divinely protected as it claims. Since Vatican II, its ecclesiology has been Protestantized. Final Thoughts: Refutation: The Catholic Church maintains doctrinal continuity while allowing for legitimate development. Vatican II’s ecclesiology enriches the understanding of Church unity and mission. Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man Fallacy, False Dichotomy - Misrepresenting the Church’s teachings and using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction.
Francis "blessed" the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatery which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism.
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch no, this was not pachamama, but our lady. You must be a complete idiot to belive that our pope would have any interest in blessing or consenting to a goddess of the amaon jungle. Literally no modern person believes in such idols - why on earth would our pope do so?
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch To refute your false statement "Francis 'blessed' the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatry which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism," we need to address both the factual inaccuracies and the theological misconceptions in the argument. A. Refutation of False Statements: 1. Misinterpretation of the Event: Event Context: The "Pachamama" statues were part of a display during the Amazon Synod held at the Vatican in October 2019. They were brought by indigenous representatives as a symbol of fertility and connection to the earth. The presence of these statues was intended to represent cultural respect and dialogue rather than an endorsement of idolatry. Pope Francis' Actions: Pope Francis did not "bless" these statues in a manner that could be construed as endorsing idol worship. His involvement was part of broader efforts to engage with indigenous cultures and address issues pertinent to the Amazon region, such as environmental protection and social justice. 2. Theological Misunderstandings: Catholic Doctrine on Idolatry: The Catholic Church firmly teaches that worship is due to God alone (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2112-2114). Veneration or respect for cultural symbols does not equate to worship. The Church distinguishes between recognizing cultural symbols and engaging in idolatry. Role of the Pope: The Pope’s role includes fostering dialogue and understanding among different cultures and religions. This does not mean he endorses or adopts non-Christian religious practices. His actions are often misinterpreted when viewed outside the context of promoting dialogue and peace. 3. Addressing Sedevacantism: Definition of Sedevacantism: Sedevacantism is the belief that the current occupant of the Papal See is not a valid Pope due to perceived heresy or apostasy. This position is not supported by mainstream Catholic theology or practice. Authority of the Pope: The legitimacy of the Pope is recognized through the established processes of the Catholic Church, including the conclave of cardinals. Disagreements or misunderstandings about specific actions do not invalidate his papacy. B. Logical Fallacies in Your Argument: 1. Straw Man Fallacy: Your argument misrepresents Pope Francis' actions, suggesting that he endorsed idol worship, which he did not. This misrepresentation is then attacked to argue against his legitimacy as Pope. 2. Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion about Pope Francis' entire papacy based on a single event involving cultural symbols is an overgeneralization. It fails to consider the broader context of his actions and teachings. 3. False Dichotomy: Your argument presents a false dichotomy: either Pope Francis endorses idol worship, or he is not the Pope. This ignores other possibilities, such as cultural misunderstanding or misinterpretation of his actions. Conclusion: Your argument that Pope Francis' interaction with the Pachamama statues constitutes apostasy and invalidates his papacy is based on a misinterpretation of the event and a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church's teachings on idolatry remain clear, and the role of the Pope includes fostering intercultural dialogue without compromising core doctrinal beliefs. The claim of sedevacantism based on this event is unsupported by Catholic theology and logical reasoning.
This channel is a blessing to me. I wrestled with Catholicism and EO and found valuable things in them. But this video and your last video on EO resonated deeply with me. I remain Protestant and love my local gathering.
Thank you, Deacon. This resonated with my experience of wrestling with the claims of Rome, seeing the merit of many of them, and ultimately feeling that I couldn't adopt the system in its entirety because of the extravagance of its claims. I also find myself appreciating your synthesis of Catholic belief with robust Biblical literacy. Perhaps one of these days you could do a video describing your reasons for accepting the practice of invoking the saints? I find this to be an issue that I go back and forth on, and would love to hear how you approach it. You have my prayers for your TH-cam ministry and (the Lord willing) your soon-to-be priestly ministry.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Hi Deacon! While I sympathize with you with the frustrations and disillusionment with Catholicism and Pope Francis. However, to be fair, when it comes to persecution, there needs to be an honest acknowledgment that it has happened on both sides as Roman Catholics have had their fair share of being persecuted in England under the Elizabethan rule. As someone who grew up with anti-catholicism, there are caricatures and demonizations of Roman Catholicism that aren't true. Please don't misunderstand me I’m not trying to make light of the persecution of protestants under Roman Catholicism. However, on the other hand, the persecution of Catholics under protestants shouldn’t be made light of either. In order to have fruitful and productive dialogues, there must be a sorrowful acknowledgment of sin and wrongdoings on both sides and humbly ask for forgiveness. As Gandhi pointed out “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist."
Thank you for this. You are right about that. A sad time. The difference, it seems to me, is that for Protestants it is not infallible teaching that the burning of heretics is the will of the Spirit.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Not infaillible teaching. May I suggest that you read what Fr. Brian Harrison wrote about this in « Torture and corporeal punishment as a problem in catholic theology », Living Tradition, 119, sept. 2005
I appreciate your video but would caution against jumping to conclusions. Last year, I converted from Coptic Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and while I understand the challenges posed by recent pontificates, here’s my perspective: 1. God is infinite, and our understanding of Him continues to deepen. Consider how Jesus’ teachings completely transformed humanity’s understanding of the Divine. From my experience, God reveals Himself gradually. The Catholic Church alone embraces the development of doctrine-something I recognized long before becoming Catholic. God never ceases to surprise us. 2. If you ask anyone on the street, “Who represents Christ?” they’ll point to the Pope. Before even debating which church is true, this fact speaks for itself. God isn’t a God of confusion-He has made this clear for a reason. To claim that the true Church is hidden in Eastern Europe or under Islamic rule in Turkey or Egypt is illogical. It’s simply absurd. 3. Only the Catholic Church has a truly universal view, acknowledging other Christians as part of its broader communion. No other Christian group does this. Coming from a Coptic Orthodox background, I’ve seen holiness and miracles, but also deep racial and ethnic divides. The Eastern Orthodox are even more nationalistic-just look at Russia and its hyper-nationalism. God is peace, and peace exists only in Catholicism. 4. I’ve read extensively on both sides. Catholic writings are the most coherent and are the only ones that have truly moved my heart. The same goes for Catholic prayers. Whenever I’ve prayed them, I’ve felt God’s presence. In the end, truth prevails.
Could you please make a video on why you chose Anglican? I’ve been so interested in Anglicanism for about 5 years and am finally ready to start learning more about it!
I crossed the Tiber back in 2017 from being a reformed Protestant. That journey took me about 6 years. I was drawn to the Catholic faith because of its sacred traditions and their traditional views on the family. Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Steven K. Ray, and others greatly helped me in my swim across the Tiber. However, I was surprised to find a true lack of fellowship, a lack of deep knowledge of the faith, the lust for power (as evident in the rise of Marxism and the subversion of law), and great scandal (most notably from the Pope Himself). I'm wondering if I was hasty in my choice to become "Roman" as opposed to just "Catholic." I'm somewhere between GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, and Saint John Henry Newman. One foot in the Tiber, one in the Thames, looking east towards the Bosporus.... Your discussion was immensely helpful. Thank you.
The problem may be more with the parish than it being Roman rite parish. I was almost immediately brought into fellowship at a small more distant parish in part because the parish life director is highly charismatic and gregarious. The larger more common parish close to me would require much more effort on my part.
Re St Gregory of Narek, there has been theological discussion and reflection between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communions recently. And the language used by miaphysites and monophysites has been discussed. To a certain degree in my mind, this is almost akin to how Protestants and Catholics use language when it comes to justification. We're both fundamentally expressing the same thing but the language differs and at times we are talking past each other.
Why would he go back to a Church that has very long History of Corruption and ROTTEN "FRUIT"? Moreover, not the least of which is the RAPE AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OF 330,000 Children( and counting) as the Vatican unsuccessfully tried to cover it up...until they got caught! 😮
Another excellent video! I appreciated the section on ecclesiology especially. I hadn't thought about the similarities between Vatican II ecclesiology and classical Protestant branch theory before.
29:17 : This statement is wrong. These encyclicals do NOT say that the sacraments are not maintained in their integrity (i. e. valid) in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Why I Left Roman Catholicism Part Nine - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Epilogue) 1. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent." [Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005-01-01). "canon of Scripture". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 282. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.] 2. Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 because it included as inspired "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." 3. One of those books in Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon included this passage from 2 Maccabees 12:38-45: 38 So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place. 39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves. 40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. 41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, 42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. 43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: 44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. 45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. [King James Bible Online Org /2-Maccabees-Chapter-12/] 4. Establishing Roman doctrine on this passage would include Purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifice for the dead. These would be violations of Thomas Cranmer's Article 22 - Of Purgatory and Article 31's "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." 5. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief). Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer with its 39 Articles of Religion was specifically composed to exclude in its communion service any Romish notion of (A) transubstantiation, (B) the minister as a sacrificing priest and (C) the mass as a corporeal sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar for the living and the dead. 6. To conclude the Epilogue on the upbeat, the following is a quotation from British historian Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order: "Cranmer's greatest achievement was the composition of the liturgical books imposed during the reign of Edward VI, which, from a literary standpoint, constitute a work of genius. The Book of Common Prayer, in particular, ranks with the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible among the highest pinnacles of English literature." [Davies, Michael. Cranmer's Godly Order (Roman Catholic Books: Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA, 1995) p. 320]
Anglicans read the Apocrypha "for example of life and instruction of manners." You'll find that some Anglicans do believe in a version of purgatory--most famously CS Lewis.
Besides believing in Purgatory, C.S. Lewis also prayed for the dead: 1. Three years before his death, C.S. Lewis revised Mere Christianity in 1960 by presenting his belief in a purification after death. As if God was the author of his words, C.S. Lewis writes: “Make no mistake,” He says, “if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away. But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, WHATEVER INCONCEIVABLE PURIFICATION IT MAY COST YOU AFTER DEATH, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until My Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less.” [Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1960, p. 172] 2. In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer that was published posthumously in 1964 one year after his death, C.S. Lewis makes explicit his (A) belief in purgatory and (B) praying for the dead that came in response to the loss of loved ones: "OF COURSE I PRAY FOR THE DEAD. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? . . ." "I BELIEVE IN PURGATORY. Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on “the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory” as that Romish doctrine had then become. . . ." "The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light.' Religion has reclaimed Purgatory." (Quoting Wikipedia: The Dream of Gerontius is an 1865 poem written by John Henry Newman consisting of the prayer of a dying man, and angelic and demonic responses. The poem, written after Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, explores his new Catholic-held beliefs of the journey from death through Purgatory, thence to Paradise, and to God ... Newman was canonized on 13 October 2019, by Pope Francis, in St. Peter's Square. The ceremony was attended by Charles III, then-Prince of Wales, representing the United Kingdom.) "Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'" "I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . ." "My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round,' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure." [Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109] 3. As an Anglican author and apologist, C.S. Lewis was circumspect in keeping his belief in Purgatory and praying for the dead hidden from the public while he lived. In this he selectively applied Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 pertaining to those Apocryphal books "for example of life and instruction of manners" where these practices are presented in 2 Maccabees 12. However, he refrained from questioning/violating the 'Romish doctrine' of Cranmer's Article 31 that stated "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits." 4. Would C.S Lewis have quoted John Henry Newman's The Dream of Gerontius as one justification for his belief in Purgatory, had he known that Newman later would be canonized a Catholic saint?
This is very very good - thank you for the Huge bit of explanation. I've been wrestling with family over the Roman Catholic Church as well as a dear friend. And I've also been curious about the Orthodox Church. I'm watching your video on Orthodoxy next! But currently sitting here as an Anglican and it's been great! Thank you for all your info.
"What!? Contradictions within Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma over the centuries? You must not have actually read it/the Bible/Church father X/ etc. You know that not EVERYTHING the Pope says is infallible, right? The Roman Catholic Church can't be wrong, or Jesus is a liar. You are calling Jesus a liar!" At least, that is what their apologists say to me if I ever point out anything like this. ;) But, seriously, the points of tension you noted were similar to those that moved me out of Roman Catholicism. A related one that concerned me was Papal Supremacy (and corollary, infallibility). The underlying problem was that, after 20+ years faithfully participating in the Roman Church, we discerned that it just wasn't helping our family. However, given all of the players (i.e., particular churches) on the field, and your concern for contradictions and tension within a church's system, I am curious about a deeper exploration of your choice for the Anglican Church.... Granted, it has no pretense of being the "one true church," and perhaps that was your main concern. Once it is recognized that those organizations that generally claim to be the "one true church" are not and cannot be, it seems to me that one is left to merely attempting to find that organization that (1) seems as close as possible or at least "sufficiently close" to whatever Jesus and the apostles taught, and (2) is effective at helping one live in deeper relationship with Christ. That could lead to many, many different organizations, as well as a (perhaps-necessarily-) subjective quality in the discernment and choice. I think that, in some ways, Roman Catholic theology and ecclesiology has become closer to the truth in recent centuries and decades. For example, the move to the concept that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Catholic Church, while recognizing that it might also subsist in OTHER groups seems to be a correct "development of doctrine." "Branch theory" can be problematic, depending on precisely what one means. Perhaps it would be better -- and closer to what you are believing and practicing -- to hold that Jesus did in fact start "one true church," and that this Body of Christ consists of all people who are baptized and attempting to live out Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, love, faithfulness, etc. Each visible church -- each human organization -- manifests that "one true church" to the degree that it and its members continue to follow Christ, avoid error, etc. In this sense, churches (and Christians), are all Christian to the degree that we are in authentic, living, relationship with Christ... and this might have less to do with the particular church I am in than other factors. In any event, thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences here. Like you, I have great affection for my Roman Catholic and various Orthodox (and other) brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't know that there is any perfect or true church today (as a visible, discrete, human organization). But there certainly are various ones that, despite their (and our) flaws, can help us draw closer to Christ. For many, that will be Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy and, for others, some other church.
@@philoalethia If it's not official then why is Pope Francis praying with Muslims in a mosque and co-founding the "abrahamic" Faith center in Abu Dhabi? Or JP II having interfaith meetings in Assisi? Seems like standard practice at this point.
Same as Paul quoting aratus and epimenidis in acts 17..the Greek pagans. “We are your offspring, in him we live and move and have our being “ the poem is literally taken verbatim from Zeus’s poem.. To point to the true gospel firms false gospel in not the difference but the similarities. With the intention to initiate dialogue.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers, thank you for sharing your conversion story. As a fellow convert, but to Catholicism, I found it particularly interesting to hear about an intellectual journey in the opposite direction. Your willingness to engage thoughtfully with faith is admirable. I did want to offer some reflections on a few points you raised. In general, I'd recommend taking a look at Chapter 9 of Lawrence Feingold's book, "Faith Comes from What is Heard." He delves into the complexities of interpreting Church history and doctrine. Here are two specific areas where I felt your reasoning could be strengthened: Moral Prescriptions and Heresy: You highlighted changes in the Church's approach to heresy, particularly regarding punishment. It's important to distinguish between the unchanging moral principle - that heresy is wrong - and the prudential application of that principle, which can vary throughout history. While the Church's methods for addressing heresy may have evolved, the underlying condemnation of heresy has not. It's akin to the death penalty: society's views on capital punishment can shift, but the moral principle that life is sacred remains constant. Papal Authority and Historical Application: You applied Catholic principles to specific historical events, but I wasn't convinced that the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority) would necessarily interpret those events in the same way. For instance, papal encyclicals (which are not infallible) often require a nuanced understanding and may not be directly applicable to every historical situation. Lawrence Feingold's book offers insights into the different levels of assent we give to various Church teachings. It might be helpful to consider whether you're interpreting historical events through a lens that aligns with the Church's own understanding. I hope this feedback is helpful. It's a complex topic, and I appreciate your willingness to explore it openly.
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock. And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.
That is a fascinating experience that you went through, and thank God for guiding you through it all. But I've got 1 concern from your pastoral advice. I agree that the church of Christ is sadly fragmented and there are true churches in the various denominations of Christendom. But didn't you have doctrinal issues in the roman and orthodox churches like their doctrines of justification, venerating and prostrating before images, praying to the saints, etc.? And don't you think that those practices are concerning and should be given some really deep thought if some one's looking to join those churches? God bless.
Thanks for making these videos. It’s encouraging to me since I was in both of these churches too and have landed in continuing Anglicanism. I’m grateful for my past and the incredible saints and lessons along the way. In all honesty I’m still putting things together. I likely will not get everything perfectly figured out, and that’s okay.
@@FrAndrewHarrah I’ll call your church office, otherwise not sure how to get ahold of you. I’m trying to use twitter but can’t figure out how to direct message.
In the document Dominus Iesus from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published on August 6, 2000, under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), this document states "54 By the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council wished to proclaim two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite divisions among Christians, the Church of Christ continues to exist in fullness in the Catholic Church alone; on the other, "that numerous elements of sanctification and truth subsist outside its structures",55 that is, in the Churches and ecclesial Communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But it must be affirmed of the latter that their "strength derives from the fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".57 17. There is, therefore, a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.58 Churches which, although not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, nevertheless remain united to it by very close bonds such as apostolic succession and the valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Consequently, the Church of Christ is present and active in these Churches, despite the absence of full communion with the Catholic Church, caused by their non-acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of Primacy, which the Bishop of Rome objectively possesses and exercises over the whole Church in accordance with the divine will.60
Thanks for this Deacon. This was instructive for me as I was unfamiliar with these particular inconsistencies of the various Vatican statements and doctrinal development in the history of Catholicism. I still have great respect and admiration for the Catholic church, it's intellectual heritage, and in general support much of Catholic theology and Social Teaching. One thing I would ask you to reconsider is this term triumphalism. I think we can be both humble and triumphalist, and in fact we should be to prevent either a collapse into relativism one one side, or a naive syncretism on the other. Consider a strongly-held belief you have, if you were to tell me that you simultaneously believe it to be true, but don't actually think it is any better or truer than (some) other mutually exclusive beliefs, then I would question your willingness in seeking truth. Why would one not adopt what they believe to be the best or true? It is one thing to say you believe something to be true, but could be wrong or mistaken, and yet another to say other beliefs (and analogously, other denominations) are equal or superior. In epistemological terms, we are justified in holding to the Truth of our beliefs over against other incompatible ones, but that does not in reality make them true. We may be wrong, and thus we remain ready to revise them in light of counter-evidence. I think we should be triumphalist in saying Anglicanism is the best (superior) and truest representation or expression of the Christian faith, and further that Christianity is the best (superior) religion, until experience shows us otherwise. I'm not saying you don't already believe this, I'm only making the argument that we should be proudly triumphalist in this sense, but not exclusivist. Best does not equal only. A good book that touches on this subject is Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus by Nicholas Rescher, who was, funnily enough, a Catholic. God bless.
Thank you, Tony. I tend to think of humility and triumphalism as opposed to one another, but I'll have to give it more thought. Perhaps we can talk about it in person sometime.
Im catholic til i die but appreciate your honesty and its great to hear a catholic to protestant video from a person who actually knows catholicism. (And orthodoxy.) Now I've got an unrelated question but haven't been able to find an answer anywhere. Have there ever been any eucharistic miracles within anglicanism or any protestant church? I'm purely asking out of interest. Thanks
I meant [NOTE the word "either"]. I accidently said "not." Heresies against dogma or doctrine are condemned infallibly. But Leo X, 20 or more years before the Council of Trent, makes an unclear condemnation of more than just heresy; he condemns other things as well, which that are lower in gravity than heresy. Therefore, Exsurge Domine, IF it is infallible, does at times condemn heresy infallibly, but also infallibly condemns things, such as, "offensive to pious ears." I would argue that Exsurge Domine is not infallible due to the shear confusion of terminology present in the document, as well as to the fact that it was probably only intended to be addressed to Martin Luther, his followers, and the Catholics of Germany. It is, however, authoritative. Besides, it is only to infallible dogma or doctrine against heresy that we must fully submit. With the other submission, that of "will and intellect" to non-infallible teachings, which is lower, theologians, unless they have sworn the Oath, can privately disagree, and can dialogue with the Magisterium. They just can't publicly broadcast it.
I'd like to offer a some rhetorical arguments against the three main bodies of your reasoning for leaving the Church. 1) The Francis Pontificate - I'd be lying if I said I haven't had my struggles since his election, but among the very Apostles our Lord spoke to and taught directly, there was one who still refused Him, lied to Him, who was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I can't say whether or not Pope Francis is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which would be a worse scenario than him simply being inadequate, but I am saying that even if he was that's not a reason to leave Catholicism because the Apostles are a precedent for the Church and the betrayal of Judas sets a precedent for schisms and scandals within the Church since the Church is comprised of sinners and within every sinner is all the good God put into us in our creation yet with the stain of concupiscence that could lead us towards sin and death. I'm sure you know that popes themselves are not protected from sin or error and that it's only their magisterial teachings that are, which has remained true even through the pontificates of downright evil popes. A bad pope, like pedo priests or heretical laity, is like the personification of that concupiscence that could lead the Church into sin and death but won't because God won't let them. For me, Pope Francis was a test of faith in Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. 3) Ecclesiology - I borrow from apologists here in saying that the Church's post-conciliar teachings on heresy is consistent with the pre-conciliar Church by virtue of historical context and understanding of the sin of heresy. Formal heresy is when you willfully deny or doubt a doctrine of the faith whereas material heresy is when you hold erroneous doctrine through no fault of your own. That is a huge difference, as while you are required to correct a material heresy it only becomes the grave sin of formal heresy upon refusal to do so, since then you have been given the chance to believe in the truth and have rejected it. You have to know what you're doing is wrong to be accountable of grave sin. So burning heretics, written in a time where it could be reasonably expected that everyone who joins a Protestant church is willfully leaving the Catholic Church, would refer to formal heretics who the Church would argue have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Protestants of the 21st century are, by and large, material heretics with families and cultural histories rooted in Protestantism. It's very easy to see the Magisterium looking upon earnest and ardent Protestants who have a true desire and longing to be united with Christ with but the material barriers of family and culture impeding their union to His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This isn't so dissimilar to poorly formed cradle Catholics unaware of particular doctrines, who by societal pressure and indoctrination have adopted erroneous beliefs and need to be corrected. What makes someone a condemnable heretic is the willful rejection of the truth, not any deficiency of the intellect. 2) Rupture in the Magisterium - I address this after Ecclesiology as my points about heresy help to explain St. Gregory of Narek's situation. As far as I know, St. Gregory of Narek wasn't the leader of the Armenian Church in his time, and even in the event that he was there would be room for him to not be a formal heretic, such as if he only knew the Armenian Church's doctrines and was unaware of the Catholic Church's teachings. This is the case with many Protestants and non-Catholics in general in the world today, often arguing against a misinterpretation of Catholic teachings. You're not a formal heretic if you reject a doctrine the Church doesn't actually teach. Following this logic, I would posit that the encyclicals about those not being under the pontificate of Rome being outside the Church, barred from Salvation, would refer to those who willfully reject the pontificate of Rome and not as an accident of their upbringing. Because at the end of the day, what about the Church enables one to receive Christ's Salvation? According to Catholicism, it is the deposit of faith, the teachings passed on from Jesus to his apostles down the apostolic succession, guided by the Holy Spirit, which provides Catholics with the grace needed to know and love and believe in Jesus. So, theoretically, if someone is born to a tradition that has much in common with the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church and they are unaware of the Catholic Church's teachings but agree or would agree with Catholic doctrines, that would put them on the same level as a material heretic within the Catholic Church who goes to Mass and receives the Eucharist but is mistaken on some things. Their deficiency is of the intellect not the will. Jesus says you'll be forgiven for blaspheming against Him, just not the Holy Spirit, because if you deny Him who brings you to Jesus, you'll never know the truth, whereas if you just deny things about the truth - in an effort to know the truth - you can be corrected. In essence, God won't damn you to hell for an honest mistake. You go to hell if you don't want to go to heaven. But why does it matter, then, if you can just be a material heretic in a Protestant or Orthodox church? Why be Catholic? Well, it goes back to that seed of evil, our concupiscence, that little Judas inside each one of us constantly working against our better judgment to lead us towards sin and death. We're all incredibly vulnerable to being lead astray by lies and temptations. Having a material heresy as part of one's understanding of the truth is an open door to all manner of lies and temptations. It is a wound in one's faith, a broken finger to one's grasp of the truth. It is the weakness Satan will exploit, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not a year from now, but the devil is in the details and the truth is you won't know it's happened until long after you've fallen into sin. He conspires from within and without, inside your heart and from within the hearts of others and from the changing circumstances and pressures of life and the world around you. A material heresy is an investment made into a future grave sin. It is impossible for any man or woman to succeed against the devil, and it is only through the fullness of the truth found in Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that you will be protected by Christ our Lord. The Church that has withstood persecution from within and without, schisms and evil popes, scandals, wars, and the changing of the times, having risen from a handful of sinners to a holy empire, having faded to a background figure behind a veil of digital distractions. You said that you are happy with where you are now, but I would entreat you, if you are moved in the slightest by any of these arguments, to pray and reconsider, and if you consider enough to investigate the validity of the Catholic Church once more, do so with as little fear and as much charity as you can muster, because the world is backwards when it says, "seeing is believing." If my experience as a Catholic has taught me anything, when it comes to God it is, "believe and you will see." And I understand, that that sounds like I'm telling you to gaslight yourself lol but it works with the truth, it doesn't work with a lie. The priests of Baal couldn't gaslight up a flame before Elijah, and while on a personal level, God's not so bombastic, He will illuminate your understanding of Church teachings and history. God bless you. 🙏❤🙏
It’s funny because you don’t hear this very often, as you’ve prefaced in the beginning of your video. What’s crazy is how much malice and vitriol each side has for the other once they leave their respective denominations/ churches. However, you’ve seem to taken all the good with you from these prior experiences considering how highly you speak of these respective experiences. This simple gesture that you’ve presented alone gives credence to your journey. Don’t let the “next you’ll convert to deconstruction/ non denomination etc.” comments because if you would’ve gone the exact opposite way from Protestant to Orthodox to Catholic, these same people would be praising you. I appreciate your perspective. Great video!
At the time of the early Church, it was usual to refer to “the Church which is at Corinth” or “the Church which is at Rome”. There was not even the slightest hint that the Church was divided up in any way other than geographically. As St Paul said “Is Christ divided”. While many living in the West look, fondly, at the Eastern Orthodox Churches, these Churches continue to follow the ancient principle. That is to say, they are not international Churches. They are the Church in Greece, the Church in Bulgaria, the Church in Russia, etc. They do not consider themselves to be “denominations” but all part of a united, single, Church, which is broken up only by reference to its geographical location. Then, with emigration, of course, we have the Greek Orthodox Church in England, originally made up of Greeks or Greek Cypriots who came to settle here, bringing their Faith with them. It is for this reason that it is not really possible for the average member of the Church of England to consider “leaving” the Church of England and joining, say, the Greek Orthodox community in England. He will have no geographical connection with the members of that Church, who are members because of where they, or their immediate family, lived until recently. Similarly, the Catholic Church in England, as perceived by the average member of the Church of England, is made up of old English Catholic families (very few) and mainly of Irish, Italian or Polish immigrants or their descendants. So, an English person who leaves the Church of England to join the English Catholic Church will find that it is not quite so English as he thought it might be. His fellow parishioners will be, mainly, not English, nor of English descent. We do, of course, have the Ordinariate, which attempts to create a genuinely English Catholic Church, however, it is tiny and is not really popular either with the Church of England, nor other Catholics, since it seems to be neither one thing nor the other. Then, there is a very tiny group in the Church of England who call themselves Anglo Catholics, however, while they maintain traditional Roman liturgical practices, they have departed from the Catholic Church on several major points of doctrine. So, if a Catholic is concerned, or more likely, shocked, by the Pachamamma incident, or by some of the very heterodox statements coming from the Pope and senior Cardinals these days, just where should he turn? A strict Evangelical Protestant Church might retain most of the essential teachings of the Faith, however, in almost all cases they will be totally opposed to the doctrines of the Faith on the Eucharist and the real presence. They will deny the necessity of any form of ministerial Priesthood. Essentially, since Protestants define themselves by being anti Catholic, they will always maintain a hostility towards the Catholic Church, on principle. What about the tiny splinter groups within the Church of England? GAFCON and the Free Church of England? These are really like sects and, not only that they are at extreme ends of the scale - from very High Church Anglo Catholics, to very strict Evangelical anti Catholic Protestants.
I feel like the Catholic leaders have fallen into the trap of the Sadducees. After studying the Bible, I became Baptist. I still say many of the prayers and the rosary.
I wonder how he knows he is right this time (in his branch of a branch of Protestantism). I wonder if he's sure he's answered every question satisfactorily once and for all. Looking forward to how he explains his current position. So far, it's a strange mix of emotional and intellectual reasoning. He sees and calls out the flaws in EO and RC then where does he find himself? His adventures (such as his dance with Celibacy) suggest to me he is not thinking things through completely.
Brother I think you are scared of satan or maybe the satan is making you paranoid. Jesus protects His Church as He promised. The Church sails smooth and rough seas but always endures because Jesus is the Head of His Church. Revisit your fears!!!
(1) Why can't Catholics and Orthodox just give public personal prayer, conversational prayer, without all the traditions and Catholic positioning, etc? Because there is no personal relationship with Jesus, IMO, without the tradition and dogma. (2) Why doesn't the Catholic Church address the high % of gay priests? It seems that there is no direction or authority of the membership to remove them. I think God will judge the Church for these sins. He's removing protestant leadership for sexual sins, as He should! But the day will come that the sin Orthodox and Catholic leadership will be brought into the light.
I highly recommend Erick Ybarra's book on the Papacy. Very honest and fair but deals with a lot of your concerns reg the contradictions you feel you see. I hope you find your way back to the Church 🙏🏼 If you don't mind my asking...a lot of these difficulties existed prior to pope Francis, how is it that they only came to both you after many years of already being Catholic?
Brother, thanks for sharing your story and your thoughtful reflections. I found both your lectures on Orthodoxy and Catholicism very interesting and edifying. I am a Byzantine Catholic (though with Latin Catholic family and experience in the church) and I totally get where you're coming from. I also hear you on the liturgial wasteland your encountered in CA. I admit to feeling deeply embarrassed by some of the awful liturgies (and ugly churches) you often find, especially in Southern CA. That more than anything is what bothers me about Catholicism. I often wonder how the Church of Christ could produce such a banal liturgy and tolerate it?
You cannot "strive" to become "wheat." You become "wheat" by embracing Jesus as Messiah, as God's only acceptable path toward Him because of His atoning death for all human sin. Your attitude is very arrogant and values church membership over Christ's sacrifice.
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 You cannot perfect yourself. When Jesus said what He did, He was describing God's uncompromising standards. If we could "perfect" ourselves, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be the ultimate sacrifice for human sin, and we wouldn't have needed the Holy Spirit to sanctify us.
@@josephdhippolito5456 There is no basis for your argument. The sacrifice is for atonement of original sin which taints all of man. Your behavior in life determines what the JUDGE Jesus will do with you on the day of final judgment (hell or heaven). Be perfect is a command. Jesus expresses it to his audience and you are part of it IF you want to follow Jesus. Striving for perfection betters all of society (that is a.o. why Christian civilization beautifies the entire world and not just churches) Faith and works. Jesus repeats it throughout the gospel. Faith for atonement, Works to pass final judgment. Protestants don't like it, but hey, they are not very Catholic. The middle ages had no issue with "perfection" and tried, e.g. young men not scared of celibacy. They joined priesthood en masse. in 1054 AD even masturbation was forbidden (and there was much gnashing of teeth). Only modern men, Protestants/modernists, are too attached to sin to even try and therefore try to weaken the demands of the gospel instead. They will not succeed.
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 so if you are correct 1. Will you ever reach perfection in this life? If you don’t, what will happen to you? 2. Where does your thinking leave room for Jesus‘s death on the cross, which atone for all human sin for all time? 3. again, if we can perfect ourselves in our own strength, why do we need Jesus to die for our sin and why do we need the Holy Spirit to sanctify us?
I try to keep my Christianity simple 2 Corinthians 11:3 The starting point, John 3:7 "Marvel not that I tell you MUST be Born Again" 1 Timothy 3:7. Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14
I have a similar background. I saw your videos on TH-cam. I was Catholic 34 years and then Orthodox for 5 years. I am now Episcopalian. I’d like to talk if you’re interested.
I would like to to thank you for sharing thoughts and experiences which can inspire me to reflect. My initial thought is of some concern (and desire for me to understand better in charity) of a very real, earthly, and human seeking for where we fit in best; and the ways in which it can (I can't honestly say that it *does*) interfere with our obedience to God (via Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium). I find it natural for people to try to figure out "what works for them". But I never necessarily know where is the fine line that separates "thy will be done" from "my will be done". For myself, I find that most of the "work" in practicing the Faith is in not putting pre-eminent importance on my own viewpoints and opinions; and instead asking myself if that inspiration/thought/opinion is coming from the Spirit or if it's coming from me and my own humanity.
From where I am, in the Catholic Church, it seems that no one has a perfect history. When I look at Catholic history, continuity starts to fray around ecclesiology (One true church), Papal Supremacy (Universal jurisdiction), and Sacramental Validity (Apostolicae curae). If I look to the East it a crap show between the Greeks and Russians over Sacramental Validity of Baptisms. The East contradicts it self when you closer when it comes to how many councils there are (Some say 7, 8, or 9) and if the Filioque is heresy. If I look to the Anglican Continuum, the few hundred years between Reformation and Oxford Movement seem to be completely Protestant with questionable sacraments. It also has no way of teaching infallibly like in the first millennium with councils similarly to the Orthodox since it lost the mechanism to call a council. No matter where I go it seems no one history can line up enough to say they have always taught the same and never contradicted themselves. Branch Theory seems like a good solution but it has no way to reunite the Church without making everyone positions untenable. I remain loyal to Rome by not openly talking about this but it seems that when you take a good look, everyone has made major mistakes or reversals. Do you have any advice?
The difference is that Anglicans don't claim to have an unchanging body of doctrine or an infallible magisterium, whereas Rome continues to claim that despite its numerous contradictions. Fr. Myles Hixon (I think this originated with him?) rather helpfully described Branch Theory as "Ecclesial Realism"--the fact simply is that the Church is divided. This is a grievous thing, but it is the reality, and we won't move past it until Christians can acknowledge the division (and not chalk it up to mere schismatic splintering).
Wouldn’t that undermine the councils by reducing their authority to non infallible, it would mean that either they are not infallible or a the church is incapable of calling a council unless everyone reunites. Also how would you respond to restorationist that claim that the break in continuity is ok since pure doctrine now is more important than continuity. That those are the largest issues I have with Anglicanism but I have heard of that version of branch theory and I find it hopeful but I have not heard serious debate on it
As I said the previous video, you'll have to determine for yourself which intellectual difficulties you can live with and which you can't. May God give you wisdom.
I appreciate your testimony. For me, it’s the other way around. Being Latino, I still have a lot of family members that are still Roman Catholic. A number of them are Pentecostal. I’m the only one that is a Reformed Presbyterian. Like you, I don’t see myself leaving the Presbyterian church. I’m convinced that it’s form of government is biblical and I’ve spiritually have grown up and matured in this church and I married my wife there too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here on your spiritual journey! Your pastoral advice especially in your Orthodoxy video is very wise and helpful. Just one question: after your experience in both the RCC and Orthodoxy, why specifically did you go Anglican? Why not, for example, go to the Old Catholics through the Polish National Catholic Church, or an evangelical Catholic (not antinomian Lutheran) group? Just curious since I went from Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism, and Anglican Catholicism was an option I could’ve taken, but ultimately chose not to take
I had been in the orbit of St. Matthew's (ACC) in Newport Beach, CA for years. It made sense for me to connect there. Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism is pretty unique! Maybe send me an email and share a little bit more about that, because I find that interesting. My in-laws are Pentecostals
You have a problem with the "exclusivism" claims of both the Roman Church and Orthodox Catholic Church, but what was the position of the Fathers? It seems to me that you try to portrait us Orthodox and Papists as the donatists of our day. But Augustine was not a supporter of the "branch theory": Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist. 141 (CH 158)]. "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem) Some Fathers recognize the existence of sacraments outside the church, but that they did not produce the effect of grace because this people were in the grave sin of schism! Father Trenham told you what any Church Father would. 40:39 These "schisms" would be break in communions between Orthodox bishops, that in time could develop in one party being excomunicate from the church if adopting a condemned heresy.
The Catholic Church is not for cowards. The greatest evils are fought here. Judas could be sitting next to you and yet, this is the Church that sustains the world, by the mercy of God. If you want to fight for God, this is it.
The greatest evils are made there. A portion of the corrupt clergy has invited it in and feeds it- yes, the rest of it is holy. I hope the good catholics and clergy will come to see this occulted stain and clean house. It has been a strain on the world. How many murders and tortures and gold-stealing, thievery and systemically enabled pedophilia does it have in it's name? Compare this with Orthodox, the Jews, Native Americans, the ancient Vedics. The dark black magic within the Vatican underbelly is old and pure evil.
Congratulations on the latest addition to your family! I came to some of the same conclusions you did, but they do not inspire me to leave the church. Perhaps because I do come from a culturally Catholic family, however negligent in their practice (Spanish dad & French mom) Catholic churches feel like home. To many incoming protestants get hung up on papal authority. So many more Catholics just role their eyes, and follow their conscience. It's not the pope's church. It's ours too. But I do miss the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican/Episcopalian hymnal. God bless you on your way sir!
Working through Denzingers Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum and I’ve come away with a variable view from that of the OP. Post and Pre Conciliar analysis have and are still being discussed and debated. Papal declaration Absolutizing is a whole sport in of itself. As a Catholic I mostly enjoy those critics of the Protestant flavor the most even though I found this presentation lovely. Deacon seems like the Ortland to James White of Anglican apologia. ❤️
The choice of the term "subsists" rather than "is" in the sentence "It must be firmly believed that the Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, instituted by Christ the Lord, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" is an important theological point. ### 1. **Concept of “subsists”** The term "subsiste" (from the Latin *subsistit in*) is used to indicate that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully and authentically in the Catholic Church. This implies that all the essential characteristics and means of salvation that Christ wanted for his Church are found in the Catholic Church. ### 2. **Difference with "is"** If the Council had used the term "is", it might have suggested a strict and total exclusivity, denying any presence of truths or means of sanctification outside the Catholic Church. By using "subsists", the Council recognizes that although the Church of Christ has its full realization in the Catholic Church, elements of that Church may also be present outside its visible structures. ### 3. **Ecumenical Openness** The use of “subsists” allows for a more open and ecumenical approach. It recognizes that other Christian communities, although imperfect and separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, possess elements of sanctification and truth. This recognition allows us to respect and dialogue with these communities in a spirit of Christian unity, without denying important doctrinal differences. ### 4. **Theological Interpretations** - **Fullness of the Means of Salvation**: The Catholic Church has all the means of salvation that Christ instituted (Scripture, tradition, sacraments, magisterium). - **Partial Presence Elsewhere**: Elements of sanctification and truth may be present in other Christian communities (e.g., the Bible, baptism, certain faith traditions). ### 5. **Subsequent Clarifications** The document **Dominus Iesus** of the year 2000 clarifies this expression by affirming that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church. However, it also recognizes that non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities can play a role in God's plan of salvation. In summary, the term "subsists" expresses an affirmation of the fullness of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, while recognizing the existence of truths and means of sanctification outside its visible structures, thus promoting dialogue and unity among Christians.
People leaving the Church because of their conclusion that the Church is wrong but my Intellect is correct without considering the Spiritual and supernatural significance of the Church such as literally 100's of Eucharistic miracles, Incorrupt saints(Carlo Acutis, Bl. Mary of Agreda,St Padre pio, etc) But even when these evidences are presented, they say:"Even Satan can do that" without considering that if they individually try to interpret the Bible they'll have different interpretations and say that the other person is wrong because the Holy Spirit revealed it to him/her (Scriptural Relativism) Did they even consider "How can the Holy Spirit give different interpretations to each people?🤦🤦" Christ didn't give us the Bible(Yes ,HE DIDN'T ) but He gave us The Church as St Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." So only the Church HAS the Authority to Interpret the Scripture through the Power of the HOLY SPIRIT 🙏🙏
I understanding where you are coming from. But a few things must be clarified: within an Ecumenical Council, only the statements ending with "let him be anathema" demonstrate infallibility. Though Infallible dogma or infallible doctrine is implied as the opposite of the heretical or error-filled teaching that is condemned, really it is condemnation of the heretical or error-filled opinion that is truly infallible. Furthermore, no inferrences or implications derived from these anathema canons actually possess infallibility. And the anathema canons, themselves, must be understood according to proper literal sense and historical contexts, and must be applied narrowly (and not maximalistically in creative freedom) and charitably. Every other part of the text of any Ecumenical Council is not infallible. With papal statements, for these to be infallible, they must be proclaimed from the Chair of St. Peter, only be concerning an issue of Faith or morals, be addressed to the entire Universal Church, and use clearly solemn and binding language. In fact, infallibility only rests in the narrow statement contained within the clearly solemn and binding language. The rest of the papal document is not infallible, including the logic that led up to the solemn statement. Concerning Exsurge Domine, if it was said from the Chair, and on account of the solemn language, it seems like it could be infallible. But was it addressed to the entire Church or just to Germany. If not addressed to the entire Church, it is not infallible. Concerning solemn language, here is the relevant part with my editorial explanations in square brackets: "With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers [some of which are non-authoritative laity], with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we [very clear and solemn official language] condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either [not the word "either"] heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience [this is the "submission of will and intellect" given to non-infallible teachings, which can change; it is not the "submission of faith" given to infallible statements] and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication [apparently, according to Jimmy Akin, past statements like this are no longer in force as binding; only the present ones are, as contained in the current Code of Canon Law]..." I get that this is confusing and legalistic. But this shows that you didn't have to leave the Catholic Church.
Fantastic video! You really should do more apologetics along these lines to counter the myth of an unchanging magisterium put forward by pop apologists on TH-cam.
As an Orthodox I can tell you with utter certainty that we believe that The One Church cannot be divided. In my copy of the Basil Liturgy, it is written "... lead back those who are in error and join them to thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." It is very much wrong to believe we teach Liturgically, that schismatics are in any way still part of the Church. We don't claim to judge for God, but your interpretation is incorrect. Honestly thought i misheard and had to hear it again. God bless!
I just looked it up: "make schisms in thy Church to cease." And I would encourage you to go back and listen to the portion of the video where I mention a number of the historical schisms *within* the church-Meletian, Acacian, etc. There needs to be conceptual space for that within Orthodoxy, because it's a historical fact. Not all schism is schism from the church.
@@FrAndrewHarrah yes, it is written as you quoted. I did not doubt that it was because I myself remembered hearing something similar. In light of the quote I provided, however, I would argue that your interpretation is at least untenable because Basil would contradict himself. I know from hearing and reading it explicated and explained countless times that Orthodoxy simply does not believe in anything like schisms "within or inside of the Church". You're welcome to read that into Basil's Liturgy but I promise you the Orthodox Church does not teach this, even in the light of "we believe what we worship." This is true very often but not in this case. At least not in your interpretation of the words. Our Church may have flaws but we never backed down from our claim to being The One Church; if you schism, you're out. It sounds like that hard line is part of why you left Orthodoxy, actually.
@@justian1772that wasn’t the position the early church took though. It looks like over time, EO have mimicked RC ecclesiology. And RC has tried to mimic EO ecclesiology lately. “His Broken Body” by Fr Laurent Cleenewerck is a good primer.
@@bobjenkins3rd My Brother, the Orthodox have never copied or taken anything from RC Ecclesiology as far as I know. Back when it was one Church maybe some crossover happened in a good way, but certainly nothing like that happened post schism.
What denomination there's always going to be doctrinal disagreements all the faith's have their issues so good luck on finding a church you agree on everything they teach. The Catholic Church will help you and serve you more than any of the other denomination's on the planet I love the Catholic Church.
Thanks for this; these are certainly challenging times. I am discerning my own way into the Church. And it is my constant prayer that I may find the, or at least a house of God where I can be lead in perfection towards heaven. I spent 20+ years in an Anglo Catholic parish which, in a very Anglican way, walked the middle way between conservative and liberal, yet was very thin on the supernatural aspects of our faith, and doctrinegenerally. I had at one time even been accepted as a postulant for the priesthood. After being bared from entry during Covid for being unvaxxed, I decided that I could, as the rejected party, in good conscience to look to the Catholic Church. For reasons of historical continuity, and the richness of its spiritual teaching it has always apealed to me. Though I knew the contemporary Churc was in many ways a shambles, I began to look for a door I could in good conscience enter. To cut it short, I am currently in catechisis with a Sedevacantist priest. This decision, of joining through one of their chapels does not appeal to me completely. Yet, I can see no ecclesiological choice which is without compromise. Much if your critique of Magisterial change is consistent with the Sedes, but your conclusions are quite in opposition to them. This is all only by way of observation. I desire only to be in communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that of the Fathers. Yet, to join the materially continuous church--the Novus Ordo-- requires that I accept both that Church teaching is fungible, as you clearly demonstrate, and to accept changes in doctrine and discipline which I find in error, while I have no authority to make this assessment. It is quite crazy making. Otherwise, as a Sedevacantist, I join a 'headless' Catholic Church under a clergy which can only offer valid Sacraments (by their own claim) but refuses, by their interpretation of Canon Law, to take ordinary. authority. Though, but for this weakness, I find the teaching of the Sedes to be continuous with the preceeding ages of the Church. Again, the choice is very disquieting. I appreciate your honesty and sincerity, and though you have certainly not helped me solve my dilemma, your words have brought me some comfort. Thank you and every blessing in Christ Jesus.
Brother, please persevere in prayer as you move forward with your sedevacantist community. I believe that sedevacantists are justified in their position because of the infiltration and overthrow of the Church by Freemasons, communists and homosexuals. Be faithful in prayer and you will be righteous and faithful.
Andrew, it seems that you saw the Truth in the earlier Catholic pronouncements that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Why then didn't you decide to hold to those statements and reject the contradictory ones? The test of faithfulness to Christ is unfortunately not limited to just doing what fells right for yourself, but also includes holding to True Doctrine whatever the cost. We are simply required to be martyrs for the Truth in this Age. Please dont give in to false ecumenism or other Modernist heresies. True Doctrine is being eschewed in these times but we must hold to the Traditional Doctrine wherever we find it, love of Christ demands it.
Yes, I'm very aware of that. It's still a good hymn, and it's in our hymnals. Just like "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," written by Martin Luther, is sung in Catholic parishes.
I fully understand the inner conficts that you experienced. From your excellent presentation it is clear that you have been thorough in your research, and the issues that you raise are issues that all honest Catholics struggle with. My story differs from yours in that my research (40 yrs) led me to embrace the Catholic faith - despite these issues. I fully believe that it is the repository of the fullnrss of Christ's teachings, and therefore it makes perfect provision for the salvation of all men. It did not surprise me that errors and evils sometimes sullied the church. Jesus plainly stated that the evil (thetefore also error) would exist in the church. I think it is important to keep one's focus on the essential parts of our faith. When we fail to do that we lose our peace. My family were also Protestants and I have embraced the idea of extreme grace - for without that they would all be lost. Jesus is able. God bless you.
Thanks for your confusion but I used to love the Jesuits.The order should be closed down so we agree on that .However I am a Catholic who prays to God using my Church for prayer between Jesus Christ and myself .I never let any human get between myself and my God .I also kneel before a statue of Our lady and pray .I am a 74 year old Catholic I don’t agree with the policy’s of this Pope .When I die I will be judged by what I have done .The Pope will be judged on what he has done.I will give you a 100% guarantee the Catholic Church is the one and ONLY Church if you want to make it .Keep the Commandments.
I was gonna say this haha. My head feels lopsided after listening to this in my headphones. This video should be called "Why I Left Audio Channel" ;) hehe jk love you Drew! Try to output mono instead of stereo for videos like this! :)
You're right to quote Gasser, but you should quote him more : “The word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.” This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (‘de fide‘, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful *cannot* know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly. During the course of Church history, there have been many occasions where a person has committed not just a single heresy, but a whole raft of theological errors. In such cases, the Church has sometimes responded by censuring a list of propositions found in the person’s writings. Sometimes this is done by condemning the propositions one by one, “the proper qualifications being attached to each individually (‘in individuo‘).” However, “in the case of . . . Luther . . . to a whole series of propositions a whole series of censures was attached generally (‘in globo‘). . . . To each of the propositions thus condemned apply one, or several, or all of the censures employed-the task of fitting each censure to each propositions being left to theologians.” If we examine Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of Luther’s propositions, it is clear that they are being condemned ‘in globo‘ rather than ‘in individuo‘. Pope Leo X wrote, “All and each of the preceding articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth.” The pontiff lists six different censures, but he doesn’t tell us which of these apply to which of the forty-one propositions. When we look at the Latin text of the sentence, this ambiguity is even more obvious. The various censures the pope names-from “heretical” to “offensive to pious ears”-are all joined by the conjunction ‘aut‘ . In ecclesiastical Latin, the word ‘aut‘ tends to have the sense of an exclusive “or”-i.e., it’s this *or* that, not both. This makes it a slam-dunk that we cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions. We can’t even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions are false. The censures “heretical” and “false” both imply falsity, but “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” and “seductive of simple minds” do not. Heresy is a term reserved for falsehoods that contradict points that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. The more general term ‘false‘ is used to refer to erroneous propositions more generally (i.e., ones that do not have to be believed with divine and Catholic faith). But the next three named censures do not imply error. In fact, they may even presuppose the truth of a position. ‘Scandalous‘ means “likely to cause scandal,” but that does not automatically mean false. Sometimes things that are true lead to scandals. ‘Offensive to pious ears‘ means “phrased in an offensive manner” or “phrased in a manner repugnant to Catholic sensibilities.” But again, that doesn’t automatically mean false. (In fact, this censure tends to be applied to propositions that are basically true but badly expressed.) ‘Seductive of simple minds means‘ “likely to be understood in a way that would lead the uneducated or inattentive to believe an error.” This also does not mean automatically false. We can speculate which censure might be applied to the proposition that using the death penalty for heresy is contrary to the will of the Spirit (a view Luther himself later repudiated). It seems to me that this proposition in that age would have been scandalous. Many people would have pointed to the examples in Scripture cited above and would have been scandalized by the proposition that it is ‘never‘ God’s will to use capital punishment for doctrinal matters. However, we cannot infer from the pope’s statement that the proposition is anything more than scandalous. It could also be deserving of one or more of the other censures, but we can’t infer from what the pope said if that were true or which would be the case. Indeed, from what the pope said alone we can’t be sure that ‘scandalous‘ is what was in mind for that proposition. Because we can’t *know* that, Exsurge Domine does not infallibly define the theological status of this proposition or the others that it treats, meaning that it cannot be used to attack the doctrine of papal infallibility. Anybody who is trying to do so needs to better understand papal infallibility, learn to parse ecclesiastical documents more carefully, or become aware of the meaning of theological censures.
Anglicanism We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
Next: why I left Anglicanism
hopefully not, Anglicanism encompasses the one true Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church
@@CupofCloudexcept the part of Anglicanism that has women and rainbow Bishops?
@@justian1772 Good thing the Continuing Anglicans don't do that.
@@GabrielWithoutWings So where is the historic consistency Brother? Where's the obedience to Anglicanism and its official teaching authority?
@@justian1772 You can read about the Continuing Anglicans by looking up the Affirmation of St. Louis. They left the Episcopal church in the 70s when they decided to start "ordaining" women.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope.
I’d love to chat with you about your journey on my channel, if you’re up for it. I don’t see contact info in your about section, but my email is in mine, if you’re up for it. In any case, thanks for sharing your story in these videos!
DO IT. EXPAND THE CIRCLES.
Thanks for the offer, Austin. Give me some time to settle in with the newborn, and then maybe we can work something out. God bless
Sweet! Hope this happens! 😁
Dont waisr your time on gospel simplicity. @@FrAndrewHarrah
Yea please. Would love to see you to having a discussion.
Next Up:
•Why I Left My Goatee
•Why I Left My Graduation Ceremony
•Why I Left California
•Why I Left the Right
•Why I Left TH-cam (The Grand Finale)
😂😂😂 sorry, couldn’t help it 🤭
It is a nice goatee tho
yep, why I left moment, understandable. Lots of misunderstanding on the magisterium and confusion on the distinctions of the dogma and the doctrine, lack of nuances. yep I left, too much to learn, yep I hope you find what your heart desires out there. maybe you go public to mislead the average and confuse Catholics or maybe a protestant, or other but not for any informed Catholics to leave the Holy Eucharist, the Confession, the sacraments is a biggest mistake one could ever made in life . Or maybe you wanted to make money on TH-cam, who knows.
laughable,
Deacon Drew Harrah (MA in Classical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, MA in History, California State University, Fullerton) all these showing authority (of University degrees) means nothing, as St. Paul Said "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,..." so stop showing authority (of University degrees).
good luck.
Lol good one
100%! this guy is leaving something every 30 days. Grand-Grand Finale: Why I left leaving.
You're very courageous putting out your testimonies. May God continue to guide you.
Great video. God willing the ACNA/Gafcon churches and the continuing churches will move closer to one another in the future. Feels like things are (however slowly) heading that way.
From your lips to God's ears
THANK YOU FOR BOTH OF THESE! Looking forward to Part Three:
"Why I Became Anglican" :)
Denzinger does not say that the whole Exsurge Domine document is infaillible. That is not how it works...
That's my understanding as well. Denzinger only provides that Exsurge Domine is a notable document in the history of the Church. It does not state that it is an infallible teaching.
Fascinating. I’m currently attending a confessional Lutheran seminary and have dealt with many of the same thoughts about Rome. I’ve always appreciated what the Anglicans have brought to the table, and I’d love to see some talking between our two communities! Blessings on your ministry, brother.
currently the LCMS is in communion talks with the G3 Anglican churches, hopefully this will lead to communion talks with the ACNA too. I would love, from the Anglican standpoint, to see more work and coming together with our Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ!
What a refreshing pair of videos these were! Thank you for your charitable, clear, and concise contribution to the online discussion on these topics.
Not sure what other plans you have for this space, but I am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Well brother, hopefully he comes home to Orthodoxy.
@@marcokite watch his previous video "Why I left Eastern Orthodoxy"
Great video. While my family and I are visiting the RCC, I appreciate your genuine journey for the truth. I don't get upset at people for having different opinions. Christianity is a tough thing to sort out in the times we live in. Hope the best for you and your family.
Thanks for this, Eric. Absolutely it is a tough thing to sort out. God bless you and yours.
I was also Roman Catholic. I later tried the Eastern Orthodox Church as I mentioned to you earlier. I'm now confused, but I pray at night and still want to read the Bible. Maybe I should focus on the New Testament, but what interpretation I remain unsure.
As an Orthodox, may I ask what confused you about Orthodoxy?
Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you.
I’ve been attending a Catholic Church for 2 years and I got baptized there last Easter and I’ve been heavily considering the Anglican Catholic Church but looking at Anglicanism at large it doesn’t look like women ordination can ever be reversed and that’s one of the main reasons why I’m skeptical of Anglicanism
They also bless same sex unions and have ordained a transgender Vicar - don't go there
Join the Ordinariate. Rome is our one true home.
@@ThatchyThrone Why OCD?
The Catholic Church has many different rites. If you don't like Latin rite novis ordo, you can try to find tridentine masses near you.
If not, there's even eastern catholic rites with liturgies similar to the orthodox church.
The hymn, "Faith of Our Fathers", was, ironically, written by a Roman Catholic priest named Frederick Faber in 1849. It was written in commemoration of the lives of the English Catholic martyrs who had been persecuted by the English King Henry VIII. Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church of England in rebellion against the Roman Catholic prohibition against divorce.
I'm aware of this. The irony is not lost on me. It's still a good hymn, and it's in our hymnal. It's kind of like how Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is sung in Catholic parishes.
It would be great to hear a video now on why you chose Anglicanism. I’m a big fan of English reformation history and it would be great to hear your take on Anglicanism in general.
I used to be Anglican, now happily Orthodox. I can assure you that Anglicanism dilutes, dilutes, dilutes the Faith.
@marcokite that depends on the version. Those that bless sin cannot claim to be Christian churches
agreed. i know very little about it.
Very systematic and without caricatures. I like it.
Matthew 25:31-46. Which church most embodies Christ's care for the poor? I was Orthodox for 10 years, and that is one of the things that perplexed me the most. So much focus on correct beliefs and so little focus on providing (compared to the Catholic Church) practical care for the poor.
Ordinariate Catholic here so.i guess you're in my "sister church" . Well I'm sorry to see you go, but I get it. I really do. St Peter's Barque is being tempest toss't in the current day.
May God bless your family, your ministry, and soon your priesthood.
Looking forward to a vid on why you specifically chose to join a church in the Anglican Way.
Thanks for the gracious response. Hope your Ordinariate experience has been enriching.
@@FrAndrewHarrah it has been. It was where I discovered Anglo Catholicism
Thank you, this is a great video!
I have a sense that every Christian (and maybe every religious believer) belongs to a denomination of one, so that your faith journey, like mine, will never really end until you see God, not darkly, but face to face. Bon voyage! ✌️
Wow! The statements that you quoted, and my having drawn the same conclusions that you drew, are a few of the very things that stopped me from becoming Catholic not too long ago. I saw both that those outside of Catholicism cannot be saved according to ex cathedra statements of certain popes and the issues that this creates given modern ex cathedra statements of popes. I also have serious misgivings about removing people from the church for not holding to lesser dogmas, such as the Marian dogmas. I really can't be part of the one, true, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church if I don't believe that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? Would Jesus desire that members of his body be separated from fellowship, let alone anathematized, for not believing such a thing? I somehow, deeply, doubt that such is the case.
As a comment that I posted last year to someone says:
"The following is part of the ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence about the middle of the 15th century.
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
--Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Section 11, Paragraph 14.
Again, ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Boniface VIII in the papal encyclical, Unam Sanctam.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4"
With all the statements brought up that are of concern, I don't see how anyone can avoid the conclusions that you draw.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church"
At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men"
The Catechism also states that the Catholic Church "is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways"
In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life"
Feeneyism is a Christian doctrine, associated with Leonard Feeney, which advocates an interpretation of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation") which is that only Catholics can go to heaven and that only those baptised with water can go to heaven. Feeneyism opposes the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood as well as the view that non-Catholics can go to heaven.
Feeneyism is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church; some Catholics refer to Feeneyism as the Boston heresy.
Quick search and you will find the answers, i really dont understand why some people dont have a problem when bible is not striclty interpreted but when tradition is not strictly interpreted than it is wrong really weard double standard.
@@sebastiankaczmarek635 You are just cherry picking phrases out of it to deal with, rather than the whole. And, I know that it has been decided that what these popes declared ex cathedra is wrong, that's the problem we are pointing to.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4
No getting around it. If you say that the pope was wrong here, when speaking ex cathedra, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is false. If you say that it was correct, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is, likewise, false. In the former case it's about past ex cathedra prounouncements, and in the latter it's about modern ones. Either way, the claim is false. Did you watch the video? The point being brought up is an internal contradiction in Roman Catholic claims. Pointing to the bits that make the claims contradictory does nothing to overturn their contradictory nature.
Why does it have to be so complicated? Why can't we just love God and love each other?
This.
This was immensely respectful! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I am a Lutheran currently investigating Rome. I do find that there are good answers to the points you raise though, however, I don't want to dismiss your points either - these are serious issues and they need to be worked through diligently if one is to be serious about the Catholic claims.
God bless you
May God give you wisdom and peace in your decision.
After discovering the ancient church while my husband was in Baptist seminary we looked into orthodoxy and Catholicism for 3 long years.
We finally found that there are faithful and orthodox Anglicans and we are at peace and at home.
Excellent presentation, thank you so much!
You’re welcome!
Let me refute some of the issues that were brought up by Deacon Drew Harrah in his TH-cam video:
1. Disorientation During Francis’s Pontificate:
Early in Francis’s pontificate, in July 2013, the infamous “Who am I to judge?” statement was made, causing confusion and disorientation. This statement became a recurring theme during my Catholic experience, making it challenging to interpret the Holy Father charitably over time.
Misuse of the "Who am I to judge?" Statement:
Refutation: The statement "Who am I to judge?" was taken out of context by the media. Pope Francis was addressing a specific question about a person’s sexual orientation and emphasizing the need for pastoral care and love, not a change in Church teaching.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting the Pope’s statement to suggest a change in doctrine.
2. The Pachamama Affair:
In October 2019, during the Amazon Synod, a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens involved statues of indigenous pregnant women, which some perceived as idolatry. This event was deeply offensive and scandalous to me and many faithful Catholics, including Cardinal Müller, the former prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Misunderstanding of the Pachamama Event:
Refutation: The Pachamama statues were not idols but symbols of life and fertility in indigenous cultures. The Pope did not condone idolatry but participated in an interreligious dialogue event.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion - Using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction without context.
3. Issues with the Magisterium:
The term magisterium refers to the teaching office of the Church. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. I found the issue of the magisterium subtle and sometimes unclear.
Misinterpretation of Papal Infallibility:
Refutation: Papal infallibility applies only in specific instances when the Pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. This has occurred rarely.
Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Assuming frequent infallible statements without evidence.
4. The Case of Exsurge Domine:
One instance often cited is the papal bull Exsurge Domine issued by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther, which condemned certain propositions. Some believe this fulfills the conditions for papal infallibility.
Misunderstanding of Historical Context:
Refutation: The condemnation of certain propositions during the Reformation was specific to that historical context and not a blanket endorsement of burning heretics.
Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting historical practices as incompatible with contemporary teachings.
5. Changes in the Death Penalty Teaching:
In 2017, Pope Francis called for a change to the catechism on the death penalty, declaring it inadmissible. This seemed to contradict past teachings.
Understanding Doctrinal Development:
Refutation: The Church’s teaching on the death penalty has developed, recognizing the dignity of human life and changing social circumstances.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting doctrinal development as contradiction.
6. Issues with the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV’s papal bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence made stark pronouncements on non-Catholics’ salvation, which seems at odds with Vatican II’s teachings.
Contextual Understanding:
Refutation: Vatican II emphasized the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, consistent with the Church’s understanding of God’s mercy and grace.
Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting pre-Vatican II and Vatican II teachings as mutually exclusive.
7. Ecclesiology and Vatican II:
The Second Vatican Council’s documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio use a framework acknowledging the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church but also includes other Christian communities.
Nuanced Understanding of Ecclesiology:
Refutation: Vatican II’s teachings reflect a deeper understanding of the Church’s unity and inclusivity, consistent with early Church Fathers’ views on schism and unity.
Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Concluding that Vatican II’s teachings represent a break from tradition without considering the continuity.
8. Personal Conclusion:
I concluded that the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium had changed its teaching, and it was not divinely protected as it claims. Since Vatican II, its ecclesiology has been Protestantized.
Final Thoughts:
Refutation: The Catholic Church maintains doctrinal continuity while allowing for legitimate development. Vatican II’s ecclesiology enriches the understanding of Church unity and mission.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man Fallacy, False Dichotomy - Misrepresenting the Church’s teachings and using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction.
Thanks.
Francis "blessed" the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatery which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism.
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch no, this was not pachamama, but our lady. You must be a complete idiot to belive that our pope would have any interest in blessing or consenting to a goddess of the amaon jungle. Literally no modern person believes in such idols - why on earth would our pope do so?
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch To refute your false statement "Francis 'blessed' the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatry which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism," we need to address both the factual inaccuracies and the theological misconceptions in the argument.
A. Refutation of False Statements:
1. Misinterpretation of the Event:
Event Context: The "Pachamama" statues were part of a display during the Amazon Synod held at the Vatican in October 2019. They were brought by indigenous representatives as a symbol of fertility and connection to the earth. The presence of these statues was intended to represent cultural respect and dialogue rather than an endorsement of idolatry.
Pope Francis' Actions: Pope Francis did not "bless" these statues in a manner that could be construed as endorsing idol worship. His involvement was part of broader efforts to engage with indigenous cultures and address issues pertinent to the Amazon region, such as environmental protection and social justice.
2. Theological Misunderstandings:
Catholic Doctrine on Idolatry: The Catholic Church firmly teaches that worship is due to God alone (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2112-2114). Veneration or respect for cultural symbols does not equate to worship. The Church distinguishes between recognizing cultural symbols and engaging in idolatry.
Role of the Pope: The Pope’s role includes fostering dialogue and understanding among different cultures and religions. This does not mean he endorses or adopts non-Christian religious practices. His actions are often misinterpreted when viewed outside the context of promoting dialogue and peace.
3. Addressing Sedevacantism:
Definition of Sedevacantism: Sedevacantism is the belief that the current occupant of the Papal See is not a valid Pope due to perceived heresy or apostasy. This position is not supported by mainstream Catholic theology or practice.
Authority of the Pope: The legitimacy of the Pope is recognized through the established processes of the Catholic Church, including the conclave of cardinals. Disagreements or misunderstandings about specific actions do not invalidate his papacy.
B. Logical Fallacies in Your Argument:
1. Straw Man Fallacy:
Your argument misrepresents Pope Francis' actions, suggesting that he endorsed idol worship, which he did not. This misrepresentation is then attacked to argue against his legitimacy as Pope.
2. Hasty Generalization:
Drawing a conclusion about Pope Francis' entire papacy based on a single event involving cultural symbols is an overgeneralization. It fails to consider the broader context of his actions and teachings.
3. False Dichotomy:
Your argument presents a false dichotomy: either Pope Francis endorses idol worship, or he is not the Pope. This ignores other possibilities, such as cultural misunderstanding or misinterpretation of his actions.
Conclusion:
Your argument that Pope Francis' interaction with the Pachamama statues constitutes apostasy and invalidates his papacy is based on a misinterpretation of the event and a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church's teachings on idolatry remain clear, and the role of the Pope includes fostering intercultural dialogue without compromising core doctrinal beliefs. The claim of sedevacantism based on this event is unsupported by Catholic theology and logical reasoning.
@@mortensimonsen1645 You're welcome.
This channel is a blessing to me. I wrestled with Catholicism and EO and found valuable things in them. But this video and your last video on EO resonated deeply with me. I remain Protestant and love my local gathering.
I hope you and he come home to Holy Orthodoxy
@@marcokite I’m already home my friend. Thank you for your heart here though
Thank you, Deacon. This resonated with my experience of wrestling with the claims of Rome, seeing the merit of many of them, and ultimately feeling that I couldn't adopt the system in its entirety because of the extravagance of its claims. I also find myself appreciating your synthesis of Catholic belief with robust Biblical literacy. Perhaps one of these days you could do a video describing your reasons for accepting the practice of invoking the saints? I find this to be an issue that I go back and forth on, and would love to hear how you approach it.
You have my prayers for your TH-cam ministry and (the Lord willing) your soon-to-be priestly ministry.
Thanks, Mark. I will likely tackle that in a future video. Difficult subject.
I’ve been looking forward to this presentation. Thank you so much for sharing your experience.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Hi Deacon! While I sympathize with you with the frustrations and disillusionment with Catholicism and Pope Francis. However, to be fair, when it comes to persecution, there needs to be an honest acknowledgment that it has happened on both sides as Roman Catholics have had their fair share of being persecuted in England under the Elizabethan rule. As someone who grew up with anti-catholicism, there are caricatures and demonizations of Roman Catholicism that aren't true. Please don't misunderstand me I’m not trying to make light of the persecution of protestants under Roman Catholicism. However, on the other hand, the persecution of Catholics under protestants shouldn’t be made light of either. In order to have fruitful and productive dialogues, there must be a sorrowful acknowledgment of sin and wrongdoings on both sides and humbly ask for forgiveness. As Gandhi pointed out “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist."
Thank you for this. You are right about that. A sad time. The difference, it seems to me, is that for Protestants it is not infallible teaching that the burning of heretics is the will of the Spirit.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Not infaillible teaching. May I suggest that you read what Fr. Brian Harrison wrote about this in « Torture and corporeal punishment as a problem in catholic theology », Living Tradition, 119, sept. 2005
@@FrAndrewHarrah See also Scott Eric Alt, « A reader asks about Exsurge Domine and burning heretics », To Give a Defense, August 31st 2019
I appreciate your video but would caution against jumping to conclusions. Last year, I converted from Coptic Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and while I understand the challenges posed by recent pontificates, here’s my perspective:
1. God is infinite, and our understanding of Him continues to deepen. Consider how Jesus’ teachings completely transformed humanity’s understanding of the Divine. From my experience, God reveals Himself gradually. The Catholic Church alone embraces the development of doctrine-something I recognized long before becoming Catholic. God never ceases to surprise us.
2. If you ask anyone on the street, “Who represents Christ?” they’ll point to the Pope. Before even debating which church is true, this fact speaks for itself. God isn’t a God of confusion-He has made this clear for a reason. To claim that the true Church is hidden in Eastern Europe or under Islamic rule in Turkey or Egypt is illogical. It’s simply absurd.
3. Only the Catholic Church has a truly universal view, acknowledging other Christians as part of its broader communion. No other Christian group does this. Coming from a Coptic Orthodox background, I’ve seen holiness and miracles, but also deep racial and ethnic divides. The Eastern Orthodox are even more nationalistic-just look at Russia and its hyper-nationalism. God is peace, and peace exists only in Catholicism.
4. I’ve read extensively on both sides. Catholic writings are the most coherent and are the only ones that have truly moved my heart. The same goes for Catholic prayers. Whenever I’ve prayed them, I’ve felt God’s presence. In the end, truth prevails.
Could you please make a video on why you chose Anglican? I’ve been so interested in Anglicanism for about 5 years and am finally ready to start learning more about it!
I crossed the Tiber back in 2017 from being a reformed Protestant. That journey took me about 6 years. I was drawn to the Catholic faith because of its sacred traditions and their traditional views on the family. Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Steven K. Ray, and others greatly helped me in my swim across the Tiber. However, I was surprised to find a true lack of fellowship, a lack of deep knowledge of the faith, the lust for power (as evident in the rise of Marxism and the subversion of law), and great scandal (most notably from the Pope Himself). I'm wondering if I was hasty in my choice to become "Roman" as opposed to just "Catholic." I'm somewhere between GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, and Saint John Henry Newman. One foot in the Tiber, one in the Thames, looking east towards the Bosporus.... Your discussion was immensely helpful. Thank you.
I know what that feels like! May God give you wisdom.
@@FrAndrewHarrah Thank you, Father.
Become Lutheran.
The problem may be more with the parish than it being Roman rite parish. I was almost immediately brought into fellowship at a small more distant parish in part because the parish life director is highly charismatic and gregarious. The larger more common parish close to me would require much more effort on my part.
Re St Gregory of Narek, there has been theological discussion and reflection between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communions recently. And the language used by miaphysites and monophysites has been discussed. To a certain degree in my mind, this is almost akin to how Protestants and Catholics use language when it comes to justification. We're both fundamentally expressing the same thing but the language differs and at times we are talking past each other.
We Catholics respect you and wish you blessings whatever set of beliefs you settle on. We will always be here when and if you decide to return.
Why would he go back to a Church that has very long History of Corruption and ROTTEN "FRUIT"?
Moreover, not the least of which is the RAPE AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OF 330,000 Children( and counting) as the Vatican unsuccessfully tried to cover it up...until they got caught! 😮
We Orthodox respect him and wish him blessings whatever set of beliefs he settles on. We will always be here when and if he decides to return.
Another excellent video! I appreciated the section on ecclesiology especially. I hadn't thought about the similarities between Vatican II ecclesiology and classical Protestant branch theory before.
29:17 : This statement is wrong. These encyclicals do NOT say that the sacraments are not maintained in their integrity (i. e. valid) in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Thank you. I have been on a very long journey. I am an Anglican priest. Your videos were helpful.
God bless your ministry, Father.
salvation is found in the Lord Jesus Christ & his word, NOT in ANY church building or denomination. NO catholic or protestant church can save you.
Those churches preach different things which affect the salvation of those people indoctrinated. The catholic faith is not preaching a sound gospel.
Thank you for this video, brother.
Why I Left Roman Catholicism
Part Nine - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Epilogue)
1. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."
[Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005-01-01). "canon of Scripture". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 282. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.]
2. Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 because it included as inspired "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
3. One of those books in Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon included this passage from 2 Maccabees 12:38-45:
38 So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
[King James Bible Online Org /2-Maccabees-Chapter-12/]
4. Establishing Roman doctrine on this passage would include Purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifice for the dead. These would be violations of Thomas Cranmer's Article 22 - Of Purgatory and Article 31's "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
5. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief). Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer with its 39 Articles of Religion was specifically composed to exclude in its communion service any Romish notion of (A) transubstantiation, (B) the minister as a sacrificing priest and (C) the mass as a corporeal sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar for the living and the dead.
6. To conclude the Epilogue on the upbeat, the following is a quotation from British historian Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order:
"Cranmer's greatest achievement was the composition of the liturgical books imposed during the reign of Edward VI, which, from a literary standpoint, constitute a work of genius. The Book of Common Prayer, in particular, ranks with the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible among the highest pinnacles of English literature."
[Davies, Michael. Cranmer's Godly Order (Roman Catholic Books: Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA, 1995) p. 320]
Anglicans read the Apocrypha "for example of life and instruction of manners." You'll find that some Anglicans do believe in a version of purgatory--most famously CS Lewis.
Besides believing in Purgatory, C.S. Lewis also prayed for the dead:
1. Three years before his death, C.S. Lewis revised Mere Christianity in 1960 by presenting his belief in a purification after death.
As if God was the author of his words, C.S. Lewis writes:
“Make no mistake,” He says, “if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away. But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, WHATEVER INCONCEIVABLE PURIFICATION IT MAY COST YOU AFTER DEATH, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until My Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less.”
[Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1960, p. 172]
2. In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer that was published posthumously in 1964 one year after his death, C.S. Lewis makes explicit his (A) belief in purgatory and (B) praying for the dead that came in response to the loss of loved ones:
"OF COURSE I PRAY FOR THE DEAD. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? . . ."
"I BELIEVE IN PURGATORY. Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on “the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory” as that Romish doctrine had then become. . . ."
"The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light.' Religion has reclaimed Purgatory."
(Quoting Wikipedia: The Dream of Gerontius is an 1865 poem written by John Henry Newman consisting of the prayer of a dying man, and angelic and demonic responses. The poem, written after Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, explores his new Catholic-held beliefs of the journey from death through Purgatory, thence to Paradise, and to God ... Newman was canonized on 13 October 2019, by Pope Francis, in St. Peter's Square. The ceremony was attended by Charles III, then-Prince of Wales, representing the United Kingdom.)
"Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'"
"I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . ."
"My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round,' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure."
[Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109]
3. As an Anglican author and apologist, C.S. Lewis was circumspect in keeping his belief in Purgatory and praying for the dead hidden from the public while he lived. In this he selectively applied Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 pertaining to those Apocryphal books "for example of life and instruction of manners" where these practices are presented in 2 Maccabees 12. However, he refrained from questioning/violating the 'Romish doctrine' of Cranmer's Article 31 that stated "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
4. Would C.S Lewis have quoted John Henry Newman's The Dream of Gerontius as one justification for his belief in Purgatory, had he known that Newman later would be canonized a Catholic saint?
This is very very good - thank you for the Huge bit of explanation. I've been wrestling with family over the Roman Catholic Church as well as a dear friend. And I've also been curious about the Orthodox Church. I'm watching your video on Orthodoxy next! But currently sitting here as an Anglican and it's been great! Thank you for all your info.
"What!? Contradictions within Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma over the centuries? You must not have actually read it/the Bible/Church father X/ etc. You know that not EVERYTHING the Pope says is infallible, right? The Roman Catholic Church can't be wrong, or Jesus is a liar. You are calling Jesus a liar!"
At least, that is what their apologists say to me if I ever point out anything like this. ;)
But, seriously, the points of tension you noted were similar to those that moved me out of Roman Catholicism. A related one that concerned me was Papal Supremacy (and corollary, infallibility). The underlying problem was that, after 20+ years faithfully participating in the Roman Church, we discerned that it just wasn't helping our family. However, given all of the players (i.e., particular churches) on the field, and your concern for contradictions and tension within a church's system, I am curious about a deeper exploration of your choice for the Anglican Church.... Granted, it has no pretense of being the "one true church," and perhaps that was your main concern. Once it is recognized that those organizations that generally claim to be the "one true church" are not and cannot be, it seems to me that one is left to merely attempting to find that organization that (1) seems as close as possible or at least "sufficiently close" to whatever Jesus and the apostles taught, and (2) is effective at helping one live in deeper relationship with Christ. That could lead to many, many different organizations, as well as a (perhaps-necessarily-) subjective quality in the discernment and choice.
I think that, in some ways, Roman Catholic theology and ecclesiology has become closer to the truth in recent centuries and decades. For example, the move to the concept that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Catholic Church, while recognizing that it might also subsist in OTHER groups seems to be a correct "development of doctrine."
"Branch theory" can be problematic, depending on precisely what one means. Perhaps it would be better -- and closer to what you are believing and practicing -- to hold that Jesus did in fact start "one true church," and that this Body of Christ consists of all people who are baptized and attempting to live out Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, love, faithfulness, etc. Each visible church -- each human organization -- manifests that "one true church" to the degree that it and its members continue to follow Christ, avoid error, etc. In this sense, churches (and Christians), are all Christian to the degree that we are in authentic, living, relationship with Christ... and this might have less to do with the particular church I am in than other factors.
In any event, thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences here. Like you, I have great affection for my Roman Catholic and various Orthodox (and other) brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't know that there is any perfect or true church today (as a visible, discrete, human organization). But there certainly are various ones that, despite their (and our) flaws, can help us draw closer to Christ. For many, that will be Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy and, for others, some other church.
Roman Catholic Catechism paragraph #841
@@thejoshuaproject3809, ya, small problem there if one is comparing it with prior "official" statements on that question.
@@philoalethia If it's not official then why is Pope Francis praying with Muslims in a mosque and co-founding the "abrahamic" Faith center in Abu Dhabi? Or JP II having interfaith meetings in Assisi? Seems like standard practice at this point.
Same as Paul quoting aratus and epimenidis in acts 17..the Greek pagans. “We are your offspring, in him we live and move and have our being “ the poem is literally taken verbatim from Zeus’s poem.. To point to the true gospel firms false gospel in not the difference but the similarities. With the intention to initiate dialogue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We appear to see things very similarly.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers, thank you for sharing your conversion story. As a fellow convert, but to Catholicism, I found it particularly interesting to hear about an intellectual journey in the opposite direction. Your willingness to engage thoughtfully with faith is admirable.
I did want to offer some reflections on a few points you raised. In general, I'd recommend taking a look at Chapter 9 of Lawrence Feingold's book, "Faith Comes from What is Heard." He delves into the complexities of interpreting Church history and doctrine.
Here are two specific areas where I felt your reasoning could be strengthened:
Moral Prescriptions and Heresy: You highlighted changes in the Church's approach to heresy, particularly regarding punishment. It's important to distinguish between the unchanging moral principle - that heresy is wrong - and the prudential application of that principle, which can vary throughout history. While the Church's methods for addressing heresy may have evolved, the underlying condemnation of heresy has not. It's akin to the death penalty: society's views on capital punishment can shift, but the moral principle that life is sacred remains constant.
Papal Authority and Historical Application: You applied Catholic principles to specific historical events, but I wasn't convinced that the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority) would necessarily interpret those events in the same way. For instance, papal encyclicals (which are not infallible) often require a nuanced understanding and may not be directly applicable to every historical situation. Lawrence Feingold's book offers insights into the different levels of assent we give to various Church teachings. It might be helpful to consider whether you're interpreting historical events through a lens that aligns with the Church's own understanding.
I hope this feedback is helpful. It's a complex topic, and I appreciate your willingness to explore it openly.
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18.
The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on.
Peter’s confession is the rock.
And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.
That is a fascinating experience that you went through, and thank God for guiding you through it all. But I've got 1 concern from your pastoral advice. I agree that the church of Christ is sadly fragmented and there are true churches in the various denominations of Christendom. But didn't you have doctrinal issues in the roman and orthodox churches like their doctrines of justification, venerating and prostrating before images, praying to the saints, etc.? And don't you think that those practices are concerning and should be given some really deep thought if some one's looking to join those churches? God bless.
Thanks for making these videos. It’s encouraging to me since I was in both of these churches too and have landed in continuing Anglicanism. I’m grateful for my past and the incredible saints and lessons along the way. In all honesty I’m still putting things together. I likely will not get everything perfectly figured out, and that’s okay.
Amazing. Send me an email when you have a moment, please. I'd like to connect.
@@FrAndrewHarrah will do!
@@FrAndrewHarrah I’ll call your church office, otherwise not sure how to get ahold of you. I’m trying to use twitter but can’t figure out how to direct message.
In the document Dominus Iesus from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published on August 6, 2000, under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), this document states
"54 By the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council wished to proclaim two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite divisions among Christians, the Church of Christ continues to exist in fullness in the Catholic Church alone; on the other, "that numerous elements of sanctification and truth subsist outside its structures",55 that is, in the Churches and ecclesial Communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But it must be affirmed of the latter that their "strength derives from the fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".57
17. There is, therefore, a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.58 Churches which, although not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, nevertheless remain united to it by very close bonds such as apostolic succession and the valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Consequently, the Church of Christ is present and active in these Churches, despite the absence of full communion with the Catholic Church, caused by their non-acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of Primacy, which the Bishop of Rome objectively possesses and exercises over the whole Church in accordance with the divine will.60
Thanks for this Deacon. This was instructive for me as I was unfamiliar with these particular inconsistencies of the various Vatican statements and doctrinal development in the history of Catholicism. I still have great respect and admiration for the Catholic church, it's intellectual heritage, and in general support much of Catholic theology and Social Teaching.
One thing I would ask you to reconsider is this term triumphalism. I think we can be both humble and triumphalist, and in fact we should be to prevent either a collapse into relativism one one side, or a naive syncretism on the other. Consider a strongly-held belief you have, if you were to tell me that you simultaneously believe it to be true, but don't actually think it is any better or truer than (some) other mutually exclusive beliefs, then I would question your willingness in seeking truth. Why would one not adopt what they believe to be the best or true? It is one thing to say you believe something to be true, but could be wrong or mistaken, and yet another to say other beliefs (and analogously, other denominations) are equal or superior. In epistemological terms, we are justified in holding to the Truth of our beliefs over against other incompatible ones, but that does not in reality make them true. We may be wrong, and thus we remain ready to revise them in light of counter-evidence.
I think we should be triumphalist in saying Anglicanism is the best (superior) and truest representation or expression of the Christian faith, and further that Christianity is the best (superior) religion, until experience shows us otherwise. I'm not saying you don't already believe this, I'm only making the argument that we should be proudly triumphalist in this sense, but not exclusivist. Best does not equal only.
A good book that touches on this subject is Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus by Nicholas Rescher, who was, funnily enough, a Catholic. God bless.
Thank you, Tony. I tend to think of humility and triumphalism as opposed to one another, but I'll have to give it more thought. Perhaps we can talk about it in person sometime.
Im catholic til i die but appreciate your honesty and its great to hear a catholic to protestant video from a person who actually knows catholicism. (And orthodoxy.)
Now I've got an unrelated question but haven't been able to find an answer anywhere. Have there ever been any eucharistic miracles within anglicanism or any protestant church? I'm purely asking out of interest. Thanks
And any claims of apparitions or visits from angels? Basically the padre pio type stuff you hear in catholicism. I've got an interest in miracles
I meant [NOTE the word "either"]. I accidently said "not." Heresies against dogma or doctrine are condemned infallibly. But Leo X, 20 or more years before the Council of Trent, makes an unclear condemnation of more than just heresy; he condemns other things as well, which that are lower in gravity than heresy. Therefore, Exsurge Domine, IF it is infallible, does at times condemn heresy infallibly, but also infallibly condemns things, such as, "offensive to pious ears."
I would argue that Exsurge Domine is not infallible due to the shear confusion of terminology present in the document, as well as to the fact that it was probably only intended to be addressed to Martin Luther, his followers, and the Catholics of Germany. It is, however, authoritative. Besides, it is only to infallible dogma or doctrine against heresy that we must fully submit. With the other submission, that of "will and intellect" to non-infallible teachings, which is lower, theologians, unless they have sworn the Oath, can privately disagree, and can dialogue with the Magisterium. They just can't publicly broadcast it.
As someone who has left Catholicism for Orthodoxy, I concur with your assessment of Francis.
Thank you for sharing your fascinating & inspiring journey!
I'd like to offer a some rhetorical arguments against the three main bodies of your reasoning for leaving the
Church.
1) The Francis Pontificate - I'd be lying if I said I haven't had my struggles since his election, but among the very Apostles our Lord spoke to and taught directly, there was one who still refused Him, lied to Him, who was a wolf in sheep's clothing. I can't say whether or not Pope Francis is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which would be a worse scenario than him simply being inadequate, but I am saying that even if he was that's not a reason to leave Catholicism because the Apostles are a precedent for the Church and the betrayal of Judas sets a precedent for schisms and scandals within the Church since the Church is comprised of sinners and within every sinner is all the good God put into us in our creation yet with the stain of concupiscence that could lead us towards sin and death. I'm sure you know that popes themselves are not protected from sin or error and that it's only their magisterial teachings that are, which has remained true even through the pontificates of downright evil popes. A bad pope, like pedo priests or heretical laity, is like the personification of that concupiscence that could lead the Church into sin and death but won't because God won't let them. For me, Pope Francis was a test of faith in Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
3) Ecclesiology - I borrow from apologists here in saying that the Church's post-conciliar teachings on heresy is consistent with the pre-conciliar Church by virtue of historical context and understanding of the sin of heresy. Formal heresy is when you willfully deny or doubt a doctrine of the faith whereas material heresy is when you hold erroneous doctrine through no fault of your own. That is a huge difference, as while you are required to correct a material heresy it only becomes the grave sin of formal heresy upon refusal to do so, since then you have been given the chance to believe in the truth and have rejected it. You have to know what you're doing is wrong to be accountable of grave sin. So burning heretics, written in a time where it could be reasonably expected that everyone who joins a Protestant church is willfully leaving the Catholic Church, would refer to formal heretics who the Church would argue have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Protestants of the 21st century are, by and large, material heretics with families and cultural histories rooted in Protestantism. It's very easy to see the Magisterium looking upon earnest and ardent Protestants who have a true desire and longing to be united with Christ with but the material barriers of family and culture impeding their union to His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. This isn't so dissimilar to poorly formed cradle Catholics unaware of particular doctrines, who by societal pressure and indoctrination have adopted erroneous beliefs and need to be corrected. What makes someone a condemnable heretic is the willful rejection of the truth, not any deficiency of the intellect.
2) Rupture in the Magisterium - I address this after Ecclesiology as my points about heresy help to explain St. Gregory of Narek's situation. As far as I know, St. Gregory of Narek wasn't the leader of the Armenian Church in his time, and even in the event that he was there would be room for him to not be a formal heretic, such as if he only knew the Armenian Church's doctrines and was unaware of the Catholic Church's teachings. This is the case with many Protestants and non-Catholics in general in the world today, often arguing against a misinterpretation of Catholic teachings. You're not a formal heretic if you reject a doctrine the Church doesn't actually teach. Following this logic, I would posit that the encyclicals about those not being under the pontificate of Rome being outside the Church, barred from Salvation, would refer to those who willfully reject the pontificate of Rome and not as an accident of their upbringing. Because at the end of the day, what about the Church enables one to receive Christ's Salvation? According to Catholicism, it is the deposit of faith, the teachings passed on from Jesus to his apostles down the apostolic succession, guided by the Holy Spirit, which provides Catholics with the grace needed to know and love and believe in Jesus. So, theoretically, if someone is born to a tradition that has much in common with the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church and they are unaware of the Catholic Church's teachings but agree or would agree with Catholic doctrines, that would put them on the same level as a material heretic within the Catholic Church who goes to Mass and receives the Eucharist but is mistaken on some things. Their deficiency is of the intellect not the will. Jesus says you'll be forgiven for blaspheming against Him, just not the Holy Spirit, because if you deny Him who brings you to Jesus, you'll never know the truth, whereas if you just deny things about the truth - in an effort to know the truth - you can be corrected. In essence, God won't damn you to hell for an honest mistake. You go to hell if you don't want to go to heaven.
But why does it matter, then, if you can just be a material heretic in a Protestant or Orthodox church? Why be Catholic? Well, it goes back to that seed of evil, our concupiscence, that little Judas inside each one of us constantly working against our better judgment to lead us towards sin and death. We're all incredibly vulnerable to being lead astray by lies and temptations. Having a material heresy as part of one's understanding of the truth is an open door to all manner of lies and temptations. It is a wound in one's faith, a broken finger to one's grasp of the truth. It is the weakness Satan will exploit, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not a year from now, but the devil is in the details and the truth is you won't know it's happened until long after you've fallen into sin. He conspires from within and without, inside your heart and from within the hearts of others and from the changing circumstances and pressures of life and the world around you. A material heresy is an investment made into a future grave sin. It is impossible for any man or woman to succeed against the devil, and it is only through the fullness of the truth found in Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that you will be protected by Christ our Lord. The Church that has withstood persecution from within and without, schisms and evil popes, scandals, wars, and the changing of the times, having risen from a handful of sinners to a holy empire, having faded to a background figure behind a veil of digital distractions. You said that you are happy with where you are now, but I would entreat you, if you are moved in the slightest by any of these arguments, to pray and reconsider, and if you consider enough to investigate the validity of the Catholic Church once more, do so with as little fear and as much charity as you can muster, because the world is backwards when it says, "seeing is believing." If my experience as a Catholic has taught me anything, when it comes to God it is, "believe and you will see." And I understand, that that sounds like I'm telling you to gaslight yourself lol but it works with the truth, it doesn't work with a lie. The priests of Baal couldn't gaslight up a flame before Elijah, and while on a personal level, God's not so bombastic, He will illuminate your understanding of Church teachings and history. God bless you. 🙏❤🙏
Christ be with you brother.
What about Mary, the saints, the rosary, transubstantiation - all those things.
It’s funny because you don’t hear this very often, as you’ve prefaced in the beginning of your video. What’s crazy is how much malice and vitriol each side has for the other once they leave their respective denominations/ churches. However, you’ve seem to taken all the good with you from these prior experiences considering how highly you speak of these respective experiences. This simple gesture that you’ve presented alone gives credence to your journey. Don’t let the “next you’ll convert to deconstruction/ non denomination etc.” comments because if you would’ve gone the exact opposite way from Protestant to Orthodox to Catholic, these same people would be praising you. I appreciate your perspective. Great video!
Thanks for the encouragement.
@@FrAndrewHarrah no problem. Looking forward to the video going over why you became Anglican
At the time of the early Church, it was usual to refer to “the Church which is at Corinth” or “the Church which is at Rome”. There was not even the slightest hint that the Church was divided up in any way other than geographically. As St Paul said “Is Christ divided”. While many living in the West look, fondly, at the Eastern Orthodox Churches, these Churches continue to follow the ancient principle. That is to say, they are not international Churches. They are the Church in Greece, the Church in Bulgaria, the Church in Russia, etc. They do not consider themselves to be “denominations” but all part of a united, single, Church, which is broken up only by reference to its geographical location. Then, with emigration, of course, we have the Greek Orthodox Church in England, originally made up of Greeks or Greek Cypriots who came to settle here, bringing their Faith with them. It is for this reason that it is not really possible for the average member of the Church of England to consider “leaving” the Church of England and joining, say, the Greek Orthodox community in England. He will have no geographical connection with the members of that Church, who are members because of where they, or their immediate family, lived until recently. Similarly, the Catholic Church in England, as perceived by the average member of the Church of England, is made up of old English Catholic families (very few) and mainly of Irish, Italian or Polish immigrants or their descendants. So, an English person who leaves the Church of England to join the English Catholic Church will find that it is not quite so English as he thought it might be. His fellow parishioners will be, mainly, not English, nor of English descent. We do, of course, have the Ordinariate, which attempts to create a genuinely English Catholic Church, however, it is tiny and is not really popular either with the Church of England, nor other Catholics, since it seems to be neither one thing nor the other. Then, there is a very tiny group in the Church of England who call themselves Anglo Catholics, however, while they maintain traditional Roman liturgical practices, they have departed from the Catholic Church on several major points of doctrine. So, if a Catholic is concerned, or more likely, shocked, by the Pachamamma incident, or by some of the very heterodox statements coming from the Pope and senior Cardinals these days, just where should he turn? A strict Evangelical Protestant Church might retain most of the essential teachings of the Faith, however, in almost all cases they will be totally opposed to the doctrines of the Faith on the Eucharist and the real presence. They will deny the necessity of any form of ministerial Priesthood. Essentially, since Protestants define themselves by being anti Catholic, they will always maintain a hostility towards the Catholic Church, on principle. What about the tiny splinter groups within the Church of England? GAFCON and the Free Church of England? These are really like sects and, not only that they are at extreme ends of the scale - from very High Church Anglo Catholics, to very strict Evangelical anti Catholic Protestants.
I feel sad for those who have no peace and wonder from church to church
Very helpful. Thanks
I feel like the Catholic leaders have fallen into the trap of the Sadducees. After studying the Bible, I became Baptist. I still say many of the prayers and the rosary.
Praise God for faithful Protestants in this hour.
why i left orthodoxy, why i left roman catholicsm..
Doesn't make sense.
He was at one point Eastern Orthodox and at another point Roman Catholic.
I wonder how he knows he is right this time (in his branch of a branch of Protestantism). I wonder if he's sure he's answered every question satisfactorily once and for all. Looking forward to how he explains his current position. So far, it's a strange mix of emotional and intellectual reasoning. He sees and calls out the flaws in EO and RC then where does he find himself? His adventures (such as his dance with Celibacy) suggest to me he is not thinking things through completely.
Why i left christianity
@@MrCastleJohnny Honestly, might be something that happens.
Brother I think you are scared of satan or maybe the satan is making you paranoid. Jesus protects His Church as He promised. The Church sails smooth and rough seas but always endures because Jesus is the Head of His Church. Revisit your fears!!!
It's not about fears. The reasons were provided in the video.
@@FrAndrewHarrah the reasons are mere assumptions of a paranoid mind.
(1) Why can't Catholics and Orthodox just give public personal prayer, conversational prayer, without all the traditions and Catholic positioning, etc? Because there is no personal relationship with Jesus, IMO, without the tradition and dogma. (2) Why doesn't the Catholic Church address the high % of gay priests? It seems that there is no direction or authority of the membership to remove them. I think God will judge the Church for these sins. He's removing protestant leadership for sexual sins, as He should! But the day will come that the sin Orthodox and Catholic leadership will be brought into the light.
I highly recommend Erick Ybarra's book on the Papacy. Very honest and fair but deals with a lot of your concerns reg the contradictions you feel you see. I hope you find your way back to the Church 🙏🏼
If you don't mind my asking...a lot of these difficulties existed prior to pope Francis, how is it that they only came to both you after many years of already being Catholic?
Agree that many of the apparent inconsistencies date prior to Francis ?
As a Protestant, I have great respect for Eric! Very honest
Brother, thanks for sharing your story and your thoughtful reflections. I found both your lectures on Orthodoxy and Catholicism very interesting and edifying. I am a Byzantine Catholic (though with Latin Catholic family and experience in the church) and I totally get where you're coming from. I also hear you on the liturgial wasteland your encountered in CA. I admit to feeling deeply embarrassed by some of the awful liturgies (and ugly churches) you often find, especially in Southern CA. That more than anything is what bothers me about Catholicism. I often wonder how the Church of Christ could produce such a banal liturgy and tolerate it?
The Catholic Church is divinely protected because I am in the Catholic church. I am a wheat, not a tare, and strive to remain a wheat.
@@pianoatthirty Jesus said. "Be perfect". So, go on. Perfect yourself. It is not optional.
You cannot "strive" to become "wheat." You become "wheat" by embracing Jesus as Messiah, as God's only acceptable path toward Him because of His atoning death for all human sin. Your attitude is very arrogant and values church membership over Christ's sacrifice.
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 You cannot perfect yourself. When Jesus said what He did, He was describing God's uncompromising standards. If we could "perfect" ourselves, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be the ultimate sacrifice for human sin, and we wouldn't have needed the Holy Spirit to sanctify us.
@@josephdhippolito5456 There is no basis for your argument. The sacrifice is for atonement of original sin which taints all of man. Your behavior in life determines what the JUDGE Jesus will do with you on the day of final judgment (hell or heaven).
Be perfect is a command. Jesus expresses it to his audience and you are part of it IF you want to follow Jesus. Striving for perfection betters all of society (that is a.o. why Christian civilization beautifies the entire world and not just churches)
Faith and works. Jesus repeats it throughout the gospel. Faith for atonement, Works to pass final judgment.
Protestants don't like it, but hey, they are not very Catholic.
The middle ages had no issue with "perfection" and tried, e.g. young men not scared of celibacy. They joined priesthood en masse. in 1054 AD even masturbation was forbidden (and there was much gnashing of teeth).
Only modern men, Protestants/modernists, are too attached to sin to even try and therefore try to weaken the demands of the gospel instead. They will not succeed.
@@discoveringthegardenofeden7882 so if you are correct
1. Will you ever reach perfection in this life? If you don’t, what will happen to you?
2. Where does your thinking leave room for Jesus‘s death on the cross, which atone for all human sin for all time?
3. again, if we can perfect ourselves in our own strength, why do we need Jesus to die for our sin and why do we need the Holy Spirit to sanctify us?
I try to keep my Christianity simple 2 Corinthians 11:3
The starting point, John 3:7 "Marvel not that I tell you MUST be Born Again"
1 Timothy 3:7. Ecclesiastes 12: 9-14
I have a similar background. I saw your videos on TH-cam. I was Catholic 34 years and then Orthodox for 5 years. I am now Episcopalian. I’d like to talk if you’re interested.
Send me an email when you have a moment, Ron.
I was Anglican, then Roman Catholic and now (thank God) Orthodox. Avoid the Anglican communion!
@@FrAndrewHarrah - I was Anglican, then Roman Catholic and now (thank God) Orthodox. Avoid the Anglican communion!
I would like to to thank you for sharing thoughts and experiences which can inspire me to reflect.
My initial thought is of some concern (and desire for me to understand better in charity) of a very real, earthly, and human seeking for where we fit in best; and the ways in which it can (I can't honestly say that it *does*) interfere with our obedience to God (via Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).
I find it natural for people to try to figure out "what works for them". But I never necessarily know where is the fine line that separates "thy will be done" from "my will be done".
For myself, I find that most of the "work" in practicing the Faith is in not putting pre-eminent importance on my own viewpoints and opinions; and instead asking myself if that inspiration/thought/opinion is coming from the Spirit or if it's coming from me and my own humanity.
From where I am, in the Catholic Church, it seems that no one has a perfect history. When I look at Catholic history, continuity starts to fray around ecclesiology (One true church), Papal Supremacy (Universal jurisdiction), and Sacramental Validity (Apostolicae curae). If I look to the East it a crap show between the Greeks and Russians over Sacramental Validity of Baptisms. The East contradicts it self when you closer when it comes to how many councils there are (Some say 7, 8, or 9) and if the Filioque is heresy. If I look to the Anglican Continuum, the few hundred years between Reformation and Oxford Movement seem to be completely Protestant with questionable sacraments. It also has no way of teaching infallibly like in the first millennium with councils similarly to the Orthodox since it lost the mechanism to call a council. No matter where I go it seems no one history can line up enough to say they have always taught the same and never contradicted themselves. Branch Theory seems like a good solution but it has no way to reunite the Church without making everyone positions untenable. I remain loyal to Rome by not openly talking about this but it seems that when you take a good look, everyone has made major mistakes or reversals. Do you have any advice?
The difference is that Anglicans don't claim to have an unchanging body of doctrine or an infallible magisterium, whereas Rome continues to claim that despite its numerous contradictions. Fr. Myles Hixon (I think this originated with him?) rather helpfully described Branch Theory as "Ecclesial Realism"--the fact simply is that the Church is divided. This is a grievous thing, but it is the reality, and we won't move past it until Christians can acknowledge the division (and not chalk it up to mere schismatic splintering).
Wouldn’t that undermine the councils by reducing their authority to non infallible, it would mean that either they are not infallible or a the church is incapable of calling a council unless everyone reunites. Also how would you respond to restorationist that claim that the break in continuity is ok since pure doctrine now is more important than continuity. That those are the largest issues I have with Anglicanism but I have heard of that version of branch theory and I find it hopeful but I have not heard serious debate on it
As I said the previous video, you'll have to determine for yourself which intellectual difficulties you can live with and which you can't. May God give you wisdom.
Advice? What is happening in your local parish?
I appreciate your testimony. For me, it’s the other way around. Being Latino, I still have a lot of family members that are still Roman Catholic. A number of them are Pentecostal. I’m the only one that is a Reformed Presbyterian. Like you, I don’t see myself leaving the Presbyterian church. I’m convinced that it’s form of government is biblical and I’ve spiritually have grown up and matured in this church and I married my wife there too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here on your spiritual journey! Your pastoral advice especially in your Orthodoxy video is very wise and helpful. Just one question: after your experience in both the RCC and Orthodoxy, why specifically did you go Anglican? Why not, for example, go to the Old Catholics through the Polish National Catholic Church, or an evangelical Catholic (not antinomian Lutheran) group? Just curious since I went from Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism, and Anglican Catholicism was an option I could’ve taken, but ultimately chose not to take
I had been in the orbit of St. Matthew's (ACC) in Newport Beach, CA for years. It made sense for me to connect there. Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism is pretty unique! Maybe send me an email and share a little bit more about that, because I find that interesting. My in-laws are Pentecostals
I converted to APCK last October, 2023. 🙏
You have a problem with the "exclusivism" claims of both the Roman Church and Orthodox Catholic Church, but what was the position of the Fathers?
It seems to me that you try to portrait us Orthodox and Papists as the donatists of our day. But Augustine was not a supporter of the "branch theory":
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)
Some Fathers recognize the existence of sacraments outside the church, but that they did not produce the effect of grace because this people were in the grave sin of schism! Father Trenham told you what any Church Father would.
40:39 These "schisms" would be break in communions between Orthodox bishops, that in time could develop in one party being excomunicate from the church if adopting a condemned heresy.
Semper Fi Deacon. Which Regiment? 1/6th Marine. God Bless Fr Mark Brown
Semper Fi, Father. If I recall, we met briefly at the Joint Synods last fall? Good to hear from you again. 5/14th Marines. Artillery.
@@FrAndrewHarrah we did meet. you gave me your number and I have failed to follow up.
The Catholic Church is not for cowards. The greatest evils are fought here. Judas could be sitting next to you and yet, this is the Church that sustains the world, by the mercy of God.
If you want to fight for God, this is it.
But her claims aren't true.
The greatest evils are made there. A portion of the corrupt clergy has invited it in and feeds it- yes, the rest of it is holy. I hope the good catholics and clergy will come to see this occulted stain and clean house. It has been a strain on the world. How many murders and tortures and gold-stealing, thievery and systemically enabled pedophilia does it have in it's name? Compare this with Orthodox, the Jews, Native Americans, the ancient Vedics. The dark black magic within the Vatican underbelly is old and pure evil.
Congratulations on the latest addition to your family! I came to some of the same conclusions you did, but they do not inspire me to leave the church. Perhaps because I do come from a culturally Catholic family, however negligent in their practice (Spanish dad & French mom) Catholic churches feel like home. To many incoming protestants get hung up on papal authority. So many more Catholics just role their eyes, and follow their conscience. It's not the pope's church. It's ours too. But I do miss the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican/Episcopalian hymnal. God bless you on your way sir!
Thanks for the gracious response. May God bless and keep you.
Working through Denzingers Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum and I’ve come away with a variable view from that of the OP. Post and Pre Conciliar analysis have and are still being discussed and debated. Papal declaration Absolutizing is a whole sport in of itself. As a Catholic I mostly enjoy those critics of the Protestant flavor the most even though I found this presentation lovely. Deacon seems like the Ortland to James White of Anglican apologia. ❤️
The choice of the term "subsists" rather than "is" in the sentence "It must be firmly believed that the Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, instituted by Christ the Lord, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" is an important theological point.
### 1. **Concept of “subsists”** The term "subsiste" (from the Latin *subsistit in*) is used to indicate that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully and authentically in the Catholic Church. This implies that all the essential characteristics and means of salvation that Christ wanted for his Church are found in the Catholic Church.
### 2. **Difference with "is"** If the Council had used the term "is", it might have suggested a strict and total exclusivity, denying any presence of truths or means of sanctification outside the Catholic Church. By using "subsists", the Council recognizes that although the Church of Christ has its full realization in the Catholic Church, elements of that Church may also be present outside its visible structures.
### 3. **Ecumenical Openness** The use of “subsists” allows for a more open and ecumenical approach. It recognizes that other Christian communities, although imperfect and separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, possess elements of sanctification and truth. This recognition allows us to respect and dialogue with these communities in a spirit of Christian unity, without denying important doctrinal differences.
### 4. **Theological Interpretations** -
**Fullness of the Means of Salvation**:
The Catholic Church has all the means of salvation that Christ instituted (Scripture, tradition, sacraments, magisterium).
- **Partial Presence Elsewhere**:
Elements of sanctification and truth may be present in other Christian communities (e.g., the Bible, baptism, certain faith traditions).
### 5. **Subsequent Clarifications**
The document **Dominus Iesus** of the year 2000 clarifies this expression by affirming that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church. However, it also recognizes that non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities can play a role in God's plan of salvation.
In summary, the term "subsists" expresses an affirmation of the fullness of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, while recognizing the existence of truths and means of sanctification outside its visible structures, thus promoting dialogue and unity among Christians.
People leaving the Church because of their conclusion that the Church is wrong but my Intellect is correct without considering the Spiritual and supernatural significance of the Church such as literally 100's of Eucharistic miracles, Incorrupt saints(Carlo Acutis, Bl. Mary of Agreda,St Padre pio, etc)
But even when these evidences are presented, they say:"Even Satan can do that" without considering that if they individually try to interpret the Bible they'll have different interpretations and say that the other person is wrong because the Holy Spirit revealed it to him/her (Scriptural Relativism)
Did they even consider "How can the Holy Spirit give different interpretations to each people?🤦🤦"
Christ didn't give us the Bible(Yes ,HE DIDN'T ) but He gave us The Church as St Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:15
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
So only the Church HAS the Authority to Interpret the Scripture through the Power of the HOLY SPIRIT 🙏🙏
Good video. (Audio channels seem messed up, louder in left ear than right. Might wanna check into that.)
Yes, thanks for this. I'll work on fixing that.
I understanding where you are coming from. But a few things must be clarified: within an Ecumenical Council, only the statements ending with "let him be anathema" demonstrate infallibility. Though Infallible dogma or infallible doctrine is implied as the opposite of the heretical or error-filled teaching that is condemned, really it is condemnation of the heretical or error-filled opinion that is truly infallible. Furthermore, no inferrences or implications derived from these anathema canons actually possess infallibility. And the anathema canons, themselves, must be understood according to proper literal sense and historical contexts, and must be applied narrowly (and not maximalistically in creative freedom) and charitably. Every other part of the text of any Ecumenical Council is not infallible. With papal statements, for these to be infallible, they must be proclaimed from the Chair of St. Peter, only be concerning an issue of Faith or morals, be addressed to the entire Universal Church, and use clearly solemn and binding language. In fact, infallibility only rests in the narrow statement contained within the clearly solemn and binding language. The rest of the papal document is not infallible, including the logic that led up to the solemn statement.
Concerning Exsurge Domine, if it was said from the Chair, and on account of the solemn language, it seems like it could be infallible. But was it addressed to the entire Church or just to Germany. If not addressed to the entire Church, it is not infallible. Concerning solemn language, here is the relevant part with my editorial explanations in square brackets:
"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers [some of which are non-authoritative laity], with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we [very clear and solemn official language] condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either [not the word "either"] heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience [this is the "submission of will and intellect" given to non-infallible teachings, which can change; it is not the "submission of faith" given to infallible statements] and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication [apparently, according to Jimmy Akin, past statements like this are no longer in force as binding; only the present ones are, as contained in the current Code of Canon Law]..."
I get that this is confusing and legalistic. But this shows that you didn't have to leave the Catholic Church.
You prove the Church is holy and sinful at the same time. You will find this in every Church.
Fantastic video! You really should do more apologetics along these lines to counter the myth of an unchanging magisterium put forward by pop apologists on TH-cam.
As an Orthodox I can tell you with utter certainty that we believe that The One Church cannot be divided. In my copy of the Basil Liturgy, it is written "... lead back those who are in error and join them to thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." It is very much wrong to believe we teach Liturgically, that schismatics are in any way still part of the Church. We don't claim to judge for God, but your interpretation is incorrect. Honestly thought i misheard and had to hear it again. God bless!
I just looked it up: "make schisms in thy Church to cease." And I would encourage you to go back and listen to the portion of the video where I mention a number of the historical schisms *within* the church-Meletian, Acacian, etc. There needs to be conceptual space for that within Orthodoxy, because it's a historical fact. Not all schism is schism from the church.
@@FrAndrewHarrah yes, it is written as you quoted. I did not doubt that it was because I myself remembered hearing something similar. In light of the quote I provided, however, I would argue that your interpretation is at least untenable because Basil would contradict himself. I know from hearing and reading it explicated and explained countless times that Orthodoxy simply does not believe in anything like schisms "within or inside of the Church". You're welcome to read that into Basil's Liturgy but I promise you the Orthodox Church does not teach this, even in the light of "we believe what we worship." This is true very often but not in this case. At least not in your interpretation of the words. Our Church may have flaws but we never backed down from our claim to being The One Church; if you schism, you're out. It sounds like that hard line is part of why you left Orthodoxy, actually.
@@FrAndrewHarrah - I hope you come home to Holy Orthodoxy, I was Anglican, the Anglican communion is an utter mess and dilutes the Faith.
@@justian1772that wasn’t the position the early church took though. It looks like over time, EO have mimicked RC ecclesiology. And RC has tried to mimic EO ecclesiology lately. “His Broken Body” by Fr Laurent Cleenewerck is a good primer.
@@bobjenkins3rd My Brother, the Orthodox have never copied or taken anything from RC Ecclesiology as far as I know. Back when it was one Church maybe some crossover happened in a good way, but certainly nothing like that happened post schism.
where ,do you think the "Anglican patrimony "came from?
I been protestant catholic eastern latin and nobis. I'm now ROCOR orthdox it's the first time I been to a church and felt home.
What denomination there's always going to be doctrinal disagreements all the faith's have their issues so good luck on finding a church you agree on everything they teach. The Catholic Church will help you and serve you more than any of the other denomination's on the planet I love the Catholic Church.
Really enjoyed this discussion! Thanks for sharing!
Discussion?This is a stream.if consciousness monologue ... This is by the book faith, which is why he suffers
Thanks for this; these are certainly challenging times. I am discerning my own way into the Church. And it is my constant prayer that I may find the, or at least a house of God where I can be lead in perfection towards heaven.
I spent 20+ years in an Anglo Catholic parish which, in a very Anglican way, walked the middle way between conservative and liberal, yet was very thin on the supernatural aspects of our faith, and doctrinegenerally. I had at one time even been accepted as a postulant for the priesthood.
After being bared from entry during Covid for being unvaxxed, I decided that I could, as the rejected party, in good conscience to look to the Catholic Church. For reasons of historical continuity, and the richness of its spiritual teaching it has always apealed to me. Though I knew the contemporary Churc was in many ways a shambles, I began to look for a door I could in good conscience enter.
To cut it short, I am currently in catechisis with a Sedevacantist priest. This decision, of joining through one of their chapels does not appeal to me completely. Yet, I can see no ecclesiological choice which is without compromise.
Much if your critique of Magisterial change is consistent with the Sedes, but your conclusions are quite in opposition to them.
This is all only by way of observation. I desire only to be in communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that of the Fathers. Yet, to join the materially continuous church--the Novus Ordo-- requires that I accept both that Church teaching is fungible, as you clearly demonstrate, and to accept changes in doctrine and discipline which I find in error, while I have no authority to make this assessment. It is quite crazy making.
Otherwise, as a Sedevacantist, I join a 'headless' Catholic Church under a clergy which can only offer valid Sacraments (by their own claim) but refuses, by their interpretation of Canon Law, to take ordinary. authority. Though, but for this weakness, I find the teaching of the Sedes to be continuous with the preceeding ages of the Church. Again, the choice is very disquieting.
I appreciate your honesty and sincerity, and though you have certainly not helped me solve my dilemma, your words have brought me some comfort. Thank you and every blessing in Christ Jesus.
Brother, please persevere in prayer as you move forward with your sedevacantist community. I believe that sedevacantists are justified in their position because of the infiltration and overthrow of the Church by Freemasons, communists and homosexuals. Be faithful in prayer and you will be righteous and faithful.
Andrew, it seems that you saw the Truth in the earlier Catholic pronouncements that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Why then didn't you decide to hold to those statements and reject the contradictory ones? The test of faithfulness to Christ is unfortunately not limited to just doing what fells right for yourself, but also includes holding to True Doctrine whatever the cost. We are simply required to be martyrs for the Truth in this Age. Please dont give in to false ecumenism or other Modernist heresies. True Doctrine is being eschewed in these times but we must hold to the Traditional Doctrine wherever we find it, love of Christ demands it.
‘Faith of our Fathers’ was written by a Catholic convert priest- Fr Frederick Faber.
Yes, I'm very aware of that. It's still a good hymn, and it's in our hymnals. Just like "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," written by Martin Luther, is sung in Catholic parishes.
I fully understand the inner conficts that you experienced. From your excellent presentation it is clear that you have been thorough in your research, and the issues that you raise are issues that all honest Catholics struggle with. My story differs from yours in that my research (40 yrs) led me to embrace the Catholic faith - despite these issues. I fully believe that it is the repository of the fullnrss of Christ's teachings, and therefore it makes perfect provision for the salvation of all men. It did not surprise me that errors and evils sometimes sullied the church. Jesus plainly stated that the evil (thetefore also error) would exist in the church. I think it is important to keep one's focus on the essential parts of our faith. When we fail to do that we lose our peace. My family were also Protestants and I have embraced the idea of extreme grace - for without that they would all be lost. Jesus is able. God bless you.
Thanks for your confusion but I used to love the Jesuits.The order should be closed down so we agree on that .However I am a Catholic who prays to God using my Church for prayer between Jesus Christ and myself .I never let any human get between myself and my God .I also kneel before a statue of Our lady and pray .I am a 74 year old Catholic I don’t agree with the policy’s of this Pope .When I die I will be judged by what I have done .The Pope will be judged on what he has done.I will give you a 100% guarantee the Catholic Church is the one and ONLY Church if you want to make it .Keep the Commandments.
@TheCounselofTrent could you do a response video to this?
Just a heads up, Audio is panned a bit too far left
I was gonna say this haha. My head feels lopsided after listening to this in my headphones. This video should be called "Why I Left Audio Channel" ;) hehe jk love you Drew! Try to output mono instead of stereo for videos like this! :)
Yeah, I noticed it too. Sorry about that. I'll work on fixing it.
@@randalldeeb I may reach out to you at some point for some technical help!
@@FrAndrewHarrah Super easy, I'll show you!
You're right to quote Gasser, but you should quote him more :
“The word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.”
This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (‘de fide‘, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful *cannot* know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.
During the course of Church history, there have been many occasions where a person has committed not just a single heresy, but a whole raft of theological errors. In such cases, the Church has sometimes responded by censuring a list of propositions found in the person’s writings. Sometimes this is done by condemning the propositions one by one, “the proper qualifications being attached to each individually (‘in individuo‘).” However, “in the case of . . . Luther . . . to a whole series of propositions a whole series of censures was attached generally (‘in globo‘). . . . To each of the propositions thus condemned apply one, or several, or all of the censures employed-the task of fitting each censure to each propositions being left to theologians.”
If we examine Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of Luther’s propositions, it is clear that they are being condemned ‘in globo‘ rather than ‘in individuo‘. Pope Leo X wrote, “All and each of the preceding articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth.” The pontiff lists six different censures, but he doesn’t tell us which of these apply to which of the forty-one propositions.
When we look at the Latin text of the sentence, this ambiguity is even more obvious. The various censures the pope names-from “heretical” to “offensive to pious ears”-are all joined by the conjunction ‘aut‘ . In ecclesiastical Latin, the word ‘aut‘ tends to have the sense of an exclusive “or”-i.e., it’s this *or* that, not both. This makes it a slam-dunk that we cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.
We can’t even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions are false. The censures “heretical” and “false” both imply falsity, but “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” and “seductive of simple minds” do not.
Heresy is a term reserved for falsehoods that contradict points that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. The more general term ‘false‘ is used to refer to erroneous propositions more generally (i.e., ones that do not have to be believed with divine and Catholic faith). But the next three named censures do not imply error. In fact, they may even presuppose the truth of a position.
‘Scandalous‘ means “likely to cause scandal,” but that does not automatically mean false. Sometimes things that are true lead to scandals. ‘Offensive to pious ears‘ means “phrased in an offensive manner” or “phrased in a manner repugnant to Catholic sensibilities.” But again, that doesn’t automatically mean false. (In fact, this censure tends to be applied to propositions that are basically true but badly expressed.) ‘Seductive of simple minds means‘ “likely to be understood in a way that would lead the uneducated or inattentive to believe an error.” This also does not mean automatically false.
We can speculate which censure might be applied to the proposition that using the death penalty for heresy is contrary to the will of the Spirit (a view Luther himself later repudiated). It seems to me that this proposition in that age would have been scandalous. Many people would have pointed to the examples in Scripture cited above and would have been scandalized by the proposition that it is ‘never‘ God’s will to use capital punishment for doctrinal matters.
However, we cannot infer from the pope’s statement that the proposition is anything more than scandalous. It could also be deserving of one or more of the other censures, but we can’t infer from what the pope said if that were true or which would be the case. Indeed, from what the pope said alone we can’t be sure that ‘scandalous‘ is what was in mind for that proposition.
Because we can’t *know* that, Exsurge Domine does not infallibly define the theological status of this proposition or the others that it treats, meaning that it cannot be used to attack the doctrine of papal infallibility. Anybody who is trying to do so needs to better understand papal infallibility, learn to parse ecclesiastical documents more carefully, or become aware of the meaning of theological censures.
Anglicanism We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
😮😮
Lord Jesus have mercy,prayer to you brother🙏🏻☦️